Loading...
Agenda 2000 10-02AGENDA ~~pHOYER Cp y -~ G ~~ ~ ~~ ,~ ,a ',* ~r _ i '~J~ iwro~txv~~~ IMO UST R7 0. pFNORTH~'p October 2, 2000 6:30 p.m. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 . Wilmington, NC WILLIAM A. CASTER CHAIRMAN • ROBERT G. GREERVKE-CHAIRMAN BUZZ BIRZENIEKS, COMMISSIONER • TED DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER • CHARLES R. HOWELL, COMMISSIONER ALLEN O'NEAL, COUNTY MANAGER • WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY • LUCIE F. HARRELL, CLERK TO THE BOARD MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman William A. Caster) INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NON-AGENDA ITEMS (Limit three minutes) APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ESTIMATED ~ PAGE TIMES ITEMS OF BUSINESS NO. 6:45 p.m. '1. Presentation by U.S. Attorney for Eastern North Carolina, Janice Cole and 1. District Attorney, John Carriker on the Gun Reduction Project ~5 p.m. 2.. Status Report on Broadcasting Board of Commissioners Meetings 3 7:00 p.m. 3. Consideration of Award of Contract for Child Support Enforcement Services 5. N~ 7:20 p.m. ~~4. Consideration ofAcceptance of Coastal Consumer Health Library to New 7 Hanover County's Public Library System ' 7:30 p.m. 5. Consideration of Approval of Formation of a Parks and Gardens Advisory 9 Task Force 7:40 p.m. 6. Meeting of the Water and Sewer District 43 Public Hearings: 7:45 p.m. 7.1 Rezoning (Continued Item) -Request by,Charles Joyce to rezone 2.72 acres 11 of property located at 1816 Farley Drive and 1810 North Kerr Avenue from AR Airport Residential to AI Airport Industrial (Z-710, 08/00) 8:10 .p.m. 7.2 Rezoning -Request by Joe Rizzo to rezone 1.16 acres located at the intersection 15 of Gordon Road and Ogden Park Drive from R-15 Residential to O&I Office and ~~ Institution. (Z-711, 08/00) ~ ~;'~.i5 p.m. ~~ Rezoning -Request by David Barefoot for T.F. Holdings Limited Partnership to 19 j rezone 8.55 acres of property located at 3001 Blue Clay Road from R-20 j Residential to I-2 Heavy Industrial. (Z-712, 08/00) .. 9:05 p.m. 7.4 Rezoning -Request by Fogelman, Saffo, and Turner, Inc: to rezone 29.96 37 acres of property adjacent to Pilots Ridge, Tidalholm, and Kirkwood at _ Arrondale developments from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential. (Z-715, 09/00) ADDITIONAL ITEMS County Commissioners . County Attorney County Manager CLOSED SESSION Personnel matter 10:30 p.m. ADJOURN l .(~ ! MEETING OF THE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ASSEMBLY ROOM, NEW HANOVER COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE 24 NORTH THIRD STREET, ROOM 301 WILMINGTON, NC October 2 2000 ITEMS OF BUSINESS . 1. Non-Agenda Items (limit three minutes) ADJOURN . • • PAGE NO. 43 CONSENT AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS October 2, 2000 • ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Approval of Waiver or Reduction of Fees at Airlie Gardens • 3. Acceptance of Healthy Carolinians Grant for Support of Healthy Carolinians Activities and associated BA #01-0046 ~ • 4. Approval of Interlocal Agreement for the Improvement of Transportation Facilities in New Hanover County 5. Approval of Support for Regional Transportation Needs. 6. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding in Support of Cooperative, Comprehensive and Continuing Transportation Planning and Establishment of a Rural Transportation Planning Organization for Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, Pender Counties and the NCDOT 7. Approval of Foster Grandparent Grant Application for three calendar year period 2001, 2002, 2003 8. Approval of Resolution Requesting NCDOT to Add Falcon Court in Prince George Estates and Roads in Lalcemoor and Berl<leigh Subdivisions of North Chase Development to the State Highway System Approval of Budget Amendments: 9.1 #2001-09 to Increase Budget for Additional Revenue Received August 10, 2000 Controlled Substance Tax Funds PAGE NO. 47 49 , 51 59 65 67 73 75 79 9.2 #2001-10 To Increase Budget for Additional Revenue Received August 10 and 18 80 2000 Federal Forfeited Property funds. _ 9.3 #O1-0044 to Budget FEMA for a Project Worksheet That Was Inappropriately 81 Denied by FEMA Last Fiscal Yar . 9.4 #01-0045 to Budget Additional State Funds for the Women, .Infants & Children 82 (WIC) Program 10. Acceptance of $35,000 Gift from Praxair Library Links Program and approval 87 of related budget amendment #01-0052 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ' Meeting Date: 10/02/00 •Regular Item #: 1 Estimated Time: Page Number: ` Department; County Manager Presenter: Janice Cole, John Carriker Contact: Allen O'Neal SUBJECT: Presentation by U.S. Attorney for Eastern North Carolina, Janice Cole and • District Attorney John Carriker on the Gun Reduction Project BRIEF SUMMARY: Ms. Coie and Mr. Carriker will provide an explanation and update on the Joint Federal, City, County Gun Reduction Project RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: . FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hear presentation. No action required. . . COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ~. 6'OUNTY COMMI~SIONERSI APPROVED ^ ` REJECTED ^ REMOVED p POSTPONED ® ,,. EiEARi~ ~ 1 n {'his page intentionally left blank} - 4 a K,~~V~~O~i.~4a:~Y ,Yfp1yGE {~y~p~ ®dJ~Vy~Ldryry~~QQY~~1~ ~~ ~ ~~~~'i~~~ 2 t ~ [~ ~ ~ ~1~° ~~'~~ Ci~,~~t~ 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 Regular Item #: 2 Estimated Time: ,Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter; Mark Boyer Contact: Mark Boyer SUBJECT: Update on Broadcasting of Meetings BRIEF SUMMARY: A brief update on the progress toward providing broadcasts of County Commission meetings on cable television.. The project will soon be ready to put out to bid. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• Information only. FUNDING SOURCE: n ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hear presentation. ~ f~~ ~ : COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: I t~ouNn coMMi~sIONEI APPROVED ^ REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ t POSTPONED rJ ,. 3 i-EEAR1~ G,` z~ . y/D . y0 ~; {This page intentionally left blank} . 4 ~ ~~ ~~~d:~~~R ~~ ~ - r~~~t$ a 4 ~~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 • Regular Item #: 3 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: DSS Presenter: Sherman Criner Contact: Wayne Morris. SUBJECT: Consideration for Award of Child Support Enforcement Services Contract BRIEF SUMMARY: Three proposals were received in' response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Child Support Enforcement Services in New Hanover County. The bidders were Policy Studies, Inc., MAXIMUS, Inc. and DynCorp Management Resources. All bidders committed to being able to comply with requirements of RFP. None of the bidders had any exceptions to requirements. There is no known corporation association between the present contractor and any of the bidders. The Board of Social Services will meet on Wednesday, September 27 to hear an evaluation of proposals by the review panel and agree upon the proposal and firm which will be recommended to the Board of Commissioners for contract award. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Consider award of contract as recommended by the Board of Social Services. FUNDING SOURCE: • ATTACHMENTS: REVI EWED~ BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider award of contract as recommended by the Board of Social Services COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: • a~~, COUNTY COMMl~-pN~ ~ APPROVED Edl REJECTED ^ REMOVEp ^ . _ POSTPONED ^ ~ FIEARt~ °` {This page intentionally left blank} ~; ~~ .>~~~~ 6 t ~"~ ~ r, - r""P~! $~ c: -; . ,..~ • • ._ ~~ _~ - _ ,~ ~ . , , - C~C.c~Jv I~SS ,~ _ ~ _ -- ~~:~t:~~~.a~ c~~~~¢w ~h-can-e~;tz-~.~-~'iQ~."~ ~d CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT ~ " `/may A~.~ 1. 3".proposals~receved ~ '~rn, IC~ev~~ f~a~rpeau, ,~~I~r~ /flit/ e~l~.ev a. Policy Studies e b. MAXIMUS, Inc. ~~~ ~~-Q c. DynCorp Management Resources ~a~r~K. ~~~~ ~~~-- ~~i U~-t.. ~'4~ 2. ,Evaluation Criteria (I~th-e t~Ql~ k'f'~d , ~ a. ;Proposal: Completeness, content, experience with child support enforcement programs, ability of bidder and its staff b. ~Organizatn: Size and structure -capability of handling work assigned c. S'taff:', Qualifications -based on organizational support and. experience <<_ - - - -~ information provided in the proposal form,,'as_well.as reference>.checksand investigations completed by the county, ~ ----" - - -" - ~- -~ ~ " - d. (Understanding.:;-0f work to be performed - = e. ;Cosh; For all services performed f. lnsurance:+ Ability to provide insurance, bond, and applicable licenses !` ~' d ~S T~ n ~ ~ ~~ Cn~ ~eSP-! c~~~~"c'.~:-~~ye +~ia-~-i j S Qn-~- 1 i,l"7 ~V~ZY~ Cvn}v'n~ ® ~.C C,,(N~ 1rY~e~EiLC6a"~', ~'; ~;c~o ~{--r`~y-~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~o ~- ~ 3 ~3 ~-a ~ GSA ~~~ ~~ - Q- > >r~c~ ~ / ~ 1. s ~ ~°ia ~ ~~-o~-oa.-Q-. r~ C~,a~1~ecFi~ i I r .. `> 3. Review~Results a. Proposals_complete o-,FL~ ,..~ ~ J _ ,,_. e -r,..~.~, -~~ ~~~~~ ~~S :, ~u~, Svc b. !Experencea. , DynCorp - 53 years old (technology); 2 yrs. (human services). y v y Policy Studies - 15 years old -nationally recognized cse co.; pioneered first privatized cse office in 1991 in TN ~+~, MAXIMUS, Inc. -nationally recognized; NC cs experience limited to DMG while they had the CS collections contract on some of our more difficult cases. c. ~Organization:;_All capable1 ~•~~x.r2~u~~ce~% d. Staff ;Quahfications;jRll qualified - - ~.~, r~rt~~('.~--y-va-~c.fis 5~„ 1 ~C e. ~iReferences? DynCorp -Fine; low maintenance Maximus -high maintenance; Some difficulties reported verbally & in news articles Policy -Fine f. ,~. ~Understand'ing~ All~~mpetent - g. Cost.:; ;Maximus - 14.20% ( differences) DynCorp - 14.25% Policy - 14.95% h. iInsurancew:-All have ability to provide ~-b~~~'`~ ;:,G~'C~w`'_'" er ~'~~UJ . ~ ed nA P 4. ~Primary~Differerices:~ ~r~, `b~` r. - ~lww~ ( a. Cost ( differences) ~ - ~ - ~~'~~t • ~ ZOdOo b. RReferences'-(Concerned about Maximus References) 5. ;Concerns) a. Relationship b/n DynCorp & Corrvantis, Inc. b. Maximus references 6. ~Recommendatiori of Coritract_Award a. Review Committee: DynCorp - ~ C~pP.~'~~~uCe_. ~~ ~~TS SyS.~ Cosf; ~e~2s~-~- b. DSS Board: DynCorp (Unanimous) C,. ~A-d.a T~`h'' C.crr~, r•25o I c,~ ~~ ~ crwa:,~rd~` v~ ._ FIB x-00 ~ 735.3 -. _. CS~~a a:~ ~~ reek c~r~=m~-u ~{~- ~ v~ -/ ~. Z-Sl ` fo~a.e. r~e~ ~v//~ech'~v~ ,1° _ z ~..~o h ~-ins-~ = ~l/1 ~-~. ~~.~ ~:~:e~_ ~ ~ -~ ~'~ ~ ~~,~„' ~ ~ ~~ss ~ orb ~ ~ ~ ~ ;! r ~,....', ~ •~ l NE'W HANOVER COUNTY INTER-OFFICE oMEMO DATE: October 2, 2000 TO: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners FROM: Patricia Melvin,. Assistant County Ma ger THROUGH: Allen O'Neal, County Manager RE: Child Support Services As you know, I attended the Board of Social Services meeting along with the review committee to present the results of our review of proposals for the Child Support Services contract. The committee recommended award to DynCorp. After hearing the presentation of the committee and comments from representatives of Maximus, Inc., Policy Studies, Inc. and.DynCorp Resource • Management, the Board of Social Services voted unanimously to recommend award of contract to DynCorp. DynCorp's representative confirmed that DynCorp is not affiliated with Corrvantis, Inc. in any way. The Board of Social Services will submit the recommendation for approval by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting tonight. The attached letter was received Friday afternoon from Maximus, Inc. Maximum, Inc. alleges that there is an ongoing relationship between DynCorp and Corrvantis, Inc. at the Onslow County site. This issue was raised at the DSS Board Meeting. DynCorp's representative assured the DSS Board that no relationship exists between the two firms. Karen Vincent from DSS has again contacted Onslow County to assess the situation, and has determined that there is no proprietary relationship between the two companies. Karen will be attending the meeting tonight. Wayne Morris is out of town on vacation. Sherman Criner may not be able to attend. If Sherman is not available, I will make the presentation. The Review Committee will also be in attendance. The committee consists of: Amy Akin Bruce Shell Barbara (Burnie) McClure Karen Vincent Pat Melvin Kemp Burpeau ~~ Attachment .~ ~ ~ alrt'-Cy-L000 h K 1: -1 1 ~ U 1 HI'1 IYCW tiHIYUVh.K UW h 11YHIYUh. hH1S NIJ. y 1 U~414UCb Y, U 1 or ~~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~. .. t • ~~: ~~ ....~ ~F'AX Z'RA~TSIVIISSI01~ . • NEW hIANOVEI2 COUNTY FINANCE OFFICE , 320 CHE57NUr STREEr, ROOM B02 , WILMIN~oN, NC 2B40f-4o91 , . TEL~PnoN~: (9 I O) 3eL l -7 10o p FNC; (91 O) 341.4025. " To: Bruce Shetl Date: September 29, 2000 Barbara McClure . Pat Melvin - • . Karen Vincent Kemp liurpeau ' . Faz #: PRges: 7 (-ncluding this cover sheet) ~' ;;,~ >r'rom: Amy Akin = _ . • ~ Subject: Utter Received fi'rom Maximus Attached is information received from <]ohn-Hurst of Maximus. I have already faxed the ` information to Sherman Criner as he requested. He has attached the Onslow evaluation letter from John Burd, Director of Onslow County DSS. •,- , In Onslow s evaluafiioi~ letter it states that DynCorp is using a subcontractor. Karen,. could you ' ~ contact John 13urd or another Qnslow DSS .representative to confirm if there is a subcontract agreement with Corr Services? DynCorp's' proposal for our contract states there will not be a . subcontractor and that DynCorp is hiring the staffto perform our services. . - p. - ~ ~ . .` ,' ., i ." i .. a ar.r-ca-~uuu. rrci 11 ~ u1 Hl'- NJvW t1HNUV~.K UU h 1NHNl;I hHX NU. 910341402h , P. 02 SEF?~29-2000 •18. A0 P.01i06 _:. ] V/~ j~ \) ]~ A j i (check bas of offrce f,nore whlrk Marrsnuissioa originates) ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ _ • • - r - - , ' • FAXCQVea`sHEET + MQF.Nf7NA: ~ ; MAkIMUS-BA -~ MA>aMUSrNICSE ( tJ fA%~e ~1eA8 NEVV1't)RK: ~ ~~ eFe6s , D16 011.61.i.311~229 NOTE: USR A trLACk FELT.TIP Pl.I'1 + ^ 7a S . ~ . FAXl/~~o1 ~ • YO EN6URR' LL'GiD1LITY a1~a1.7z PAXOOL i IMA?OMUSr~aokCourdyG56 MIUaMU6-NYM•dlaidCHO1CE ~ e .., ~~ t ,ARIZONA: MWOMUSrl4lmnaWOAKS ^ ~12.IA1.iSE9 0iti FAll61t109 ~ ~nrolAnnn18rok•f-NYCky 817 72B 58Q0 +' t T? 1,~~{ r A 896 . . , v ~ ' 1 ~ aev.e e.e + FAX A60,eee.7eelf 1 MAX1MlJg-111inoi•JobAdvantAq• 312.762.697D ~ FA%tlLattet tl ~ pHIQ: , ~ • AGENCY:. --- - + CALIi'tlgN4i: FaX3127i2~e9 MAK1MUb-ClwelandcSP + , PNONf= ~. CarronCan•ufdnq ~ ^ 4t6.4S6.9300 ^ F~A117XI~~Mfl HoTAS, _ D FIA6X.58l1~9e061~~ , ' -, °~~q r 3~\-\1C52 S F ` ~ Fdttotl.drtl~06 t FAXi1/7,661,Y17G % M MAXIMUS-CdumhuCSE r 814.228.000} r ^ ~ AX N: i MA%IMUB-leke Co. CaIWCRW 707 804 }}1} NA I US•SSI ~ ^ 9127626300 MA% etw.?b.e107 r . t ~~ r ~ . . 07 rt1 / A7f FAx6liTts6323 M '` `. - ' `FiiloNl: ~~^ ~1~\\ . . at t5 7 r F i MAXIMU5-Ortnp•C4.CINVORKs ~h~1•AIOµV$-TapokaC9L U9-HomdtanCu; . n MAXI ~"" ~A%a19~777a TELEPHONE N: r 71aJ09.2W0 + ^ FAX }1/.70!.2012 ^ ~~a ~ ' o PENN9)1VANlA: ~ ' t NR/ACCYfA1{ 114.7W.20i1 ~ z ~. ISe llhW H k contra satAwu•, Inc. ^ 610.687.82a2 BATE: '~~ ~Q TIME: ' pp~1egg~o ~ MAXIMUS.9an CaNVCRKB ee ave s Ib~2925~390~ ^ KAx Q10A11.9/~7 a TOTAL-PAGES (ICI tovar eha~t~: ~ + ^ 61 p,/pp.460a ADAIIN ~ FAX 78a29'2s1>t9 M~RY~ANO MAXIMUS.pfiILd•Iphla 9ekdkn• 1 t5 .5 84 1 ^ . . \\ _ ~ MAtaMus-oMae~rNe~ 91s.~e6.eloz ^ : e~rmolocstr A1D ~AZ~on ^ ~ 2 s ~~ + M , • REMARKS:- e~~,tP.'~oc~t~ ~ rAxele.maaoz . fAXno317.59t6 + sour M~ O~ -'~'~Q ~d~~~~ Gd~~' ~K + MNlIMUB,SaammenEb-0A 11CO >atsasa eeto '4 e MAXIMUS-1 C!W WQRKI 127 •tv 51~ sE + IM r ~ P~ i~~ 016s 1 ' ~, . r~ , ~ I 1 ~ FAX91a961.o~e '~' I H)1 FAXOt0 Sd1 09/6 ~ . . ^ B7i,9y2.?896 PJV1.10,T27.z17t1 , ffNN~SS« r -~ S''~C , C f ~ r.tZ G ,~, ' ~ . . + MA><IMUS-0wid•an Ca. CSE + ~ . w ~ MAXIMUS-Rh+er~a (Te~naer~ ' , ^ 909.6M1.6230 Pnnenia Planrthrp ^ JO1.Bi/.4110 ^ 6t5azs,oSla , FAX 615.7243061 ' dC \^C~.~ 1~ `c~f~.~ ~ FAX90L861580sf FAK701.9i4.7b10 r MAXIMUS,MdvtsonCe.GSL~ ~ _e~-~~ ~o ~ y ~ ~- ' COLORADOs MAXIMUS.gP•soCSE' t MN(IMU3-r.G, Ca, CS6 ^ 301,686.9080 ^ 4Z3,/57.7T30 ' ' FAX42D,AOT.Oat>q ~ _ ~, ~ 7i9.36t.409t8a000 FAX301~509,670Z ' ~` ~~ \~.c~,~~C \ ~ FJ-X71f,301.aoeq + MAxIMUS-p,G. Ca. WORKS ~ w+xiMUSrTr•ntanCSH ~ ^ 90t.Bfi5.~200 ' ' + MAXIMUS-CO FfwAh 6nrorl. + a 303-692.8374 ^ 301.910,8565 FA1(z01.91e.1771 /AX 001.e0tl.4zt7' - + r ' FAX909,e926S~T MAXIMUS-TNCS6 ~ • + + crotuNpcrlcur: l~IAXIMU&ManL Co. SOBS- GsiBr~sa+rg Customer 9•+vlee ^ 6t6.729.sma ., --___ ~-_-----~--• 1 MAXIMUS-CCAP -- aaD,i29s6oo ^ ~2~f~ ei,~ FAX615.~22637 . ~ VlRQINfA. 1 MAxIMUS-Corp4rete i ^ rAX~600,~rA050 INF O 1 M1CyipgN: MAXIMU9~3rrnd N Ids~CSE ~ ~•MA%IMU •cretm N~ln, r 800 a74 5D 703.73a.a2aa ' - r A M AX8W.917.0057 r ^ E16.851,181/ . . 1 ^ EAX91x./•4,17~ r aoo,9ee,a,aa ~ ~' r MAxIMUS-cc~P FAx~,s,oBr,9rs~ r t ,PaX7afi.t9•.~ai + SyAlatl/NOOlnrt{p.FaPROB - ~ Oe0s50.e74A r ~ FAx118U.Q60.i7W MA10MU5~utICHILD1Et~iR011S MAXIMUS-Q+t.Draker-~AnGn + . ~ 5t2.A8t.5450 ~ ~ 7ravN FAX tlnwall~ + ~L IrAX 512.~19a066 . + + o18TgIC70FC4WMYtiI' B92s ~-+ FAX 517 ~ ' °• ~ MA%iMU3-Jones 9ranrh Or. ~ 1a9.794,2500 r MgXIMUS r ^ za2s0a.aaea MI5S15SIPPI: UTAK MAriIMUS-Uhl+ MMCS + ' + , ~ 888.a30A894 FA + FAX202240.5A7i ~ MA1041U9.lackaati CSC ~1 ^ FA ~ ©801,384.1680 ~ . FAX601 964 teee ~ . X703.Itzi.x6/1 • HR PAXT03.827.0560 ~ RE'GAWApl' X .9A 6.0A00 , . 1 , Hq MoUln• eD0.3492092 ' ~ hW(IMU3-W~nn on ~ + 302323 13DA O MCNrANA; V1tAMONT , ~MUFr6wgnplen VNAP + r. MAXIMU9-Raton ~ . (Al13PL327,1459 1 MAIf{MU3-Customer Service 6 M eaa3 ~ ^ A ^ e0R,651.15T7 ' FAX 1}02 661 1628 . ^ 703-251.8231 . r ~ , E -OYPT~ - X 4o 6791 . . ~ FAX709.2i1.it?AO + , ACCT. FAX7a9~i1.1a0R + , + hvNSiMUS-ca~o CCO ~ r ^ 01t.202A66.9979 MPJUMUs-Man.oed c.n ^ sa/.M1.}515 WASHING7I~JV: , MAIfIMU$(DravaNe~ + ' , _ t MA1cIMU6-VkglnleBeachYlEW + `-+ FAX 01130.260.7005 , FAX108,4/2392Y ^ 380.8s6.Of90 , 7 r FAX900 9 . ' + . ^ 757,497.3591 1 OEOROw: NEYApA: 860A 7 ~ ' ~ fAY ~0'I,~,~ei ~ r' ~ MAXIMUS-Airpuete CSfi 1 ^ 709,739A791 a FAX 706 ~ MA)aMU'rL''IeAC Ca. ^ 7a2883.96a8 W/5CONSIN: r MAXIMUS,WIWOIiK3 i _ ' _ MASSACHU8E71~ ' .759.8162 r ^ ~l FA%7otOS7.e5{4 41A.8a7.0/7t , . ' -~[4?CJMUS-~WaAIIWIi ' ^ 76t.svz.looo ~ 1 t MAxIMUS-AUaaucsE-~•rbht»• + ^ /0A.968316011Q1,989.10~ N~y~Eggg~~ MWUMU6 N~HdC FA7i4t1.eo'/.OaeE r IfRFAX4iA.647,0~6P r ' ~ Emp~py~a Oulnodt a14 607 0aT4 + eoo.as2.Sl9e ~ ~ FAx40l8ee.00e4 - N f' E p 8 . , MAifSfAFF~tA 807 7477 + FAx7a1.7e9.e916 + nfa R m•n1 ro ~ 6o9s64.2600 . , 11a.eo7,7476 + ' + MAxiNU3-MIINBMP r HAWAIk ~ MAXIMUS-HlChldCsta fax eoo,ee.v16, . + ' ~ r ' 1 817,122,5870 + + 600.987.52x! ~ M11fOMU9-NJDDD ~ FAX 4/7,412.5}00 + + fAXeoi.6B7,6271 + ^ 009.790,A100 ' FAX ~OY,10tIJ7A6 ~. ... - 'n1d'rt~: "rr~~ ~ col ~~. +fn ofv;18 ~ airTrar-~,r;as~on; v~eas'e ~r~: - - + r - - - - - - - - - -~~ : ~ ~ , • ~ o o ~ , , ~ i i ~ 1 ~ , a ,. ~.. j ~ ,. ,. ..- . i r t ar.r-ca-cuuU rKl 11 ~ UL Hfl IYI:W tiHNUVKK UU F 1NHNU~. ,. SEP--2B-2000 18~ 41 • h HX NU. y l U~414U~b t', U3 P.02i06 pus HELPING GOVEXNMEI~l SERVE THE PEOPLE September 28, 200Q Mr. 5herrtan Griner, Chairman New Hanover County Board of Social Services 1650 Greenfield Street Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Dear Mt• Griner; Thank you for the opportunity to address the New Hanover County Board of Social Services on September 27, 2000 regarding the evaluation cotttsnlttee recommendation for the awazd of contract # 00.0353 for rhild support enforcement services. MAXIMU5 is pleased to be considered as the private vendor for this project_ , The proposal evaluation process is a difficult undertaking and,we applaud the efforts of the evaluation committee. However, we do have concerns regarding the evaluation process followed for this procurement. Our concerns are ss follows: 1. References • During the board meeting on September Z7, 2000, it was stated that thz references contacted For MAXiMUS wcr~ the states of Kansas and Tennessee. In sCazrsas, Mf1~YIMUS previously provided specialized services to approximately ~30500~_c2-ses; dw'ing a - ree-year--periad? In Tennessee, MAXIMUS ctucantiy has several ongoing operations, which provide full child support services and specialized customer service, In addition, we lrarned today that Tennessee has chosen MAXIMUS a, the vendor to provide full child support services in the Chattanooga azea. MAJ~QMUS currently has 24 ongoing child support operations in eleven sepafate states.~An`evaluatr`vn~ based-on feedback=&cm-a-"former-vlieitit~does =not=provide.-att~sccutatc~ovcrdll _plctute: We would think that Tennessee would .have provided positive feedback since they just chose MAXIMUS in Chattanooga. A mare repreeeutative evaluation, we believe, would include contacts with states in which our laigest=operations~exist,-such as Maryland and Illinois or contact with a neighboring state like South Carolina, where we have a fuCl service operation in the nearby Myrtle $cach area. 2. Newspaper Articles The evaluation criteria listed in the IiFP advertised on August 1, 2000 did not state that newspaper articles would be treed in the evaluation process. The articles (continued...) MAXlMUS CN/LD SUPPORT SERVICES, COBB JUDICIAL CIRC,UlT • 2$12 SPRING ROAD, SUITE 150 ATL•4NTA. GEORGIA 303j9 !.888.603.0011 • FAX 770.430.x53! • f% ar.r-~y-~uuu hKl 1 1 ~ uL HI'1 N~.W tiHNUVh,K ~U h 1NHN(;h. hAX NV, 9103414025 P. 04 5EP-28-2000 18 41 P,C3ie6 • referenced in the September 20, 2000 recotrunendation memo from the Child Support Proposal Review Tearrl to the New Hanover County Board of Social Services contained many inaccurate statements regarding MAXIMUS role in the particulaz situations, In addition, three of the five articles cited involved non-child support related projects. It seems reasonable that any proposed bidder would have had an vpportuairy_io respondao negative aned~a arcicies~used asfan~eveluativn-Criterion~p~iox to the` completroa_of_the ~eyaluation_ptocess __ _ __ ~ ~^- 3. Evaluat-on. Scoring' Sections 2.10.? of the 12FP advertised on August 1, 2000 states that the award Of arty contract resulting from the RFP would be made considering the criteria which was subsequently. ltsted_ir~~sectlons 2,.10.2.,1.. through. 2.10.2 6 A~scoring:or~ranking_of.the=% bidders-based qn-the-listed criteria~has norbeen-made available.' 4. ~:Relatioas>tip=With-CurreaE -Vendor. During the Board Meeting on September 27, 2000, a question was asked about the relationship between Dyncorp and Cortvantis during the recent procurement for child support services in Or~slow County. Our understanding is that the representative from Dyoeorp indicated that there was no relationship. Attached is a copy of correspondence • ~ sent to each bidder in Onslow County summarising the evaluation of the bids. The correspondence suggests that there was asubcontractor relationship-at,that_time In closing,.Y would like to again thank you for the opportunity to address ti'~z Board on September 27, 2000. MA~XIMUS strongly hopes that the vendor selected is done so based on the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP. •Sincerely, ~ '~ ~\~ Jo urst cc: Amy Akin, Furchasing Agent Dave Hogan, President, Child Support Division Bob ]ohnson, Vice President, Child Support Divlslon MAXIMUS JGC-C~7-CVUV t'R1 1 1 ~ UL ttll IYCW rlttIYVVCR UV C 11YttlYUC SEP-28-2000 18 42 'RPR-12-Z6t~0 ~1= 55 rn~n i ram ~John~bund~co.onslo • w,no.us~ pgJ~ypq 04:44 PM Please r+:spond b ~ '~ohn_burd~oo.onalow. na.ua` L' 1 V V --+ ~ - C. U~ P.04i06 To: ~'DHoBant~ma~dna.exm" <DHogan®maxine.eoms, - "FLar+gii{a®PollcyS{udleS.COfl-"" <ptarsQiue~Polky~ludlas.com~, 'doorrSveau6~oorn-ardFa,corn" adcortlvaau~eornronGs.eomy. "nickolamt~dynwro.0oln" sniekolem®dyneerp.com> cc; "Swindtll, Bob" <baw(ndalt~mtlbklet.CORIa, Wegme Davey eWindows/edminlWaynaQw.onslow.no.ua~, RAgar -pnrad <W(ndowshdminlRogar~oo.onalow.nc.us~, '"bpheW~poAnstow.nalp" <bencw~colOn6low.nC.us>, Gst/'te-~M Ic~!!s <W{ndowshdmin/Gtharine~co,onstow.naua>, >t'd Blackwtll KWlndowyadmlNF~®co,onalow.nc.us>, John Surd sWindows/aQminNehn®ca,onalow.nc.us+ Subject C6f contras OnvlvW Ceunp~ Oa April l9, soaa aC i:30 DM, z will be intormiag ous ASS board o! vas ntaf!'o ova~,uxeiors of the bide for the c8E Contract is oaelow County. ~ uriZ1 be asking our bvatd to tormulaCe Cheis zacvrnmeadation to Chr Qn>vlow county )3oetd of County Commissioneze. Ac that tililt, arty conaractora that ' are present (and you cil is~dioattd you would ba t2~t=e or Nava a xGp. there), Drill he afforded an oppertuaity ko add any infoz~nation for t>xe board~e eoneideraeion than you teal we taay sot hav. e4kan xz~co account, ax givon pxeper we39hC. Y would imagine our chaizman monad requeac thaa.any preeeneaCio21 to t?sa board be brioi tlo miautea). Mr. swindQll (our board chair) will probably wi>al1 to sak ooma gyastiona of you nb sell. Yn ordos !or you co prepare adae~latmiy for this meecinp~ =want tv Cell you ail bom my :calf sad Y ranked the bids and wby. I alsifo W+iAt ko Yaioo ooma gueatione Chao aza itauee for our board sad our county that you sin addresr• If you wiph ko reply to any and ail of thaoa things in writing (e-mail it fine) that would be good and give ut an opportunity tv CoASidaY yvuY responses prier to the meeting. ??ia lowest bid xa->r from Policy-St:udiera (pt3X) at 13.at. Next wee >ayr~Co~cp ~e~~agamanL )Raaqutege (DI'DZ) at 11, 91. Third men !(axiatua Max) at. i;# , Tag dollar amount~diEfereace between the highest and lewe9t bid (baaQd o>a Sd million collected) would amoua,t to just uxxdar S50,oo4. The petieeatad coct for the county to do es>z is approximatQly idt, er abeue X200,000 more than the lowest bid. 1Qext we eonsidesed it there wire fectore wa ^houl,d take into accvu>7t thati would never-rida^ tho cost ta,ctor, Wa aoaaido>w ghat tEve corC di~flarant"sal is significant, but noE ovazwhalaii>og, wt thCri considered Cheee other factors= 1. Effactivanacs {Rpv will ch,~y ~aa do the job) 1. Serviea Ce3slci»uity a. tyate~n eo ensure ouatomar aaeittaction a. Tzack Record s . L~nployee Yn~pdcc CttA IYVI' ~1UJ414ULU ' ~ ~ JGr-c~7-cVVU rRl 11 ~ W nll IYCW rlnIYVYGR VV r 11Yt11YliG rnn IYV. ~71UJ414000 r. ~o SEP-~8-2000 18:42 P.05i06 . , r.R'K-lc~srrw G~~JO liw u.,..v EfgeeEiYanas-a s All Ghe coatr+etors rated wry w®11 in tksie iron. Nhile saoh has s ortszwhaC dirlaxenk s,pproich, wC beltived that asst' vt th^ three contractors Mould produce very good results in Cszms of court ozd^rs and support cell®cted. -te don+e bclci.re s oour-ty run oD®sat3on vould pr:eduee nearly as w®11. RotitDgd r PSI - Ai r plat i Hi r DSax = Ri; D9A ~ Moderate sQSYive Cotsti>>uity: ' The flip Bide o! this is pregsa:q disruption, that le: ihetonvinnae to clititCS, alert down e! ^etvieu, interu8tioss of work or produceian. Only.oaa eoAtXaetor has n clear edge in Chia area. nMR, since they viii subcontract wilk the current cont:•actor~ can show there would be a s^in+laso tranBition. both other oompar,ioa have an itt1S?rossiva.pian to minimize diaruptioa, but there Weald be trvme, Thar^lorC the ratirtga were, DMR i 8i; PSI ^ Modsrata; Mstix ~ Moderater ASS .; MvdmYare to Low system to assure cuaaortter setiaPactioti Tksi~ mans ,some R+.ee?sardam to motsftor pAona ea11C, wait time. customez~ satisfictioa etc. zt Aiso maar;s an potablishQd macbanism eo b»elyee Che information and do tremeW~.itf9 with 1E. All tbrae coatraetort have demonstrated eysteme in place, theta were ina~exesrirsg variaCiona but still all ss^med viable and more than adaquakQ. only pS8 would hav^ tv create a system. Th^rafore, the ratirigs 'Here: pSI ~ Hi! DN(F~ i Hit MSx ~ fii; b5S w Mod47Cato . • History, or track lteeerd~ ship eStvQ~tl thzaa azeas: Perlozzaaaee, Financial dealings, sad Credibility. Max and psr both zatad the same is all tisese areas. They sack have yroven track retoxds in other eeaeaa wish ^imila; foal service CoatraGCa. they both arcs fiaaacially tCable Cort-panies. We can evaluate heieher SA terms of Credibility since we have had rib di~eCb ptrtrottal dealings wikh them. DMR we rseed to look xt diilQrQntly aiace they have a ctiebagatracCox. Ors xhe matter of porlozmanca pM~t AaCe6 Hi. Thais eubceatrpctos has dllivared excallaht porformanc^ its Chit and ^v^ry cbuaty. In the srea of Pinaae$al Dealinr~s, AMlR. rates: Hi. In the area of Credibility their subconZraCCOr, Corrvantie, xaCea low. There have been s~'veral issues eve=.tha past Crro years that nave beef well documented is the press tH$E calla to question cerrvantis a;edibility. Ettt~+loyea Impact: • et' this we mean the itapacZ on current enplvyceS of Corrvantie. (A zaeing of Ki Meaae she impact would be m~aimal and sxexe£ore Cotstinuity hi.) DMR races ai in this area eiAee LJssy would providq ii ssis~laMS transition. nSz aria MAX and D9S rate Moderate, since the ^mploye^a would n^ad to apply Lax work with there other c~loycrs tltez:e would be Qome disruption. ar.r-ca-cuuu rrcl ~ 11 . u~ HI'I tvKW t1H1YUV1rK VU h 1NHNUh. hHX NU. y1UU414U~b P, 07 ~~ ~~EP-28-2000 18 ~ 42 P . 06/0f> L AF'I~i2-2610 ~i = 56 ~twx ~ riua , .,.. --- - . . _ ~ - • cossalusica: I did not beleive any of the above aoneideratione to be so sigt'ifficanC as to over-ride the cost advantage. Ocher' quesCicny: 1. 3~iow will your eo~pany work with C!!e eeuaty~s court officials such ae Judges and Clerks ai court in order eo vbtaia suEPSeienb vouzt time and ingute cases are pzoceeeed emoothly2 z, Xow will yvu obtain d~cp~triemoet9 legal services suffioieat not only to cover 3nWCeuzt time, bUk also to review pleadings (complaint, motianos, orders, eka) before fililsg and to consult with wiLnessess7 3. How w}11 your company insure suffS.cient up-front rapxt~l in available to meet advanced costs, payroll, bills quid e~Bts686? 4. How Will you insure easy and prompt aveess Co your otaf$ by phone foz clients, attorneys, and Cvurt officials? I realise that many of the answers to tke above have been prvrrided !.n your proposals, However, it may be worthwhile to point out to us }pow a1~d where this is addressed in the proposal. Thin mill be particularly helpful for the. board who may net have had the opportunity to study each proposal is detail. ~ hope this is heip>Eul and will give you an opportunity to ensuxe tbat.we have given each of your proposals fait consideration. • John R, gurd Director, pnslOw County DS8 910-g39-5400 • rorra~ p.06 • • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 Department: DSS Presenter: Sherman Criner, Chairman of the Board for the Department of Social Services Contact: Amy Akin SUBJECT: Award of Request for Proposals (RFP) # 00-0353 and approval of contract # 00-0353 for child support enforcement services by private contractor. BRIEF SUMMARY: In response to the County's bidding process, three proposals were received. The companies submitting proposals were DynCorp, Maximus, Inc., and Policy Studies, Inc. An evaluation committee reviewed the proposals and presented their recommendation to the New Hanover County Board of Social Services at the Social Services Board meeting on Wednesday, September 27, 2000. A representative from each company also addressed the Board regarding their company's proposal. After discussion, the New Hanover County Department of Social Services voted unanimously to accept the evaluation committee's recommendation and to recommend to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that the contract be awarded to DynCorp. The evaluation committee consisted of: Pat Melvin, Assistant County Manager Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Bruce Shell, Finance Director Barbara McClure, Assistant Finance Director Karen Vincent, Assistant Director for Economic Services Amy Akin, Purchasing Agent Attached is a resolution for award of RFP arid approval of the contract with DynCorp. Also attached is a copy of the memorandum detailing the committee's recommendation. (The draft contract is on file in the Manager's Office.) RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend adoption of resolution awarding RFP # 00-0353 for Child Support Enforcement Services to DynCorp and approval of contract # 00-0353 at a fee of 14.25% of total net collections; the fee per year not to exceed $1,500,000.00. FUNDING SOURCE: 110-530-5350-2000-3700 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for award and approval of contract 2. Memorandum detailing the committee's recommendation Q,~?LiNTY rOM~115SICNER~ ~ APPROVED C~! ' REJECTED p' 'REMOVCD p POSTFO~IEn ~. FIEARi) CI ;~l I ~~f~~ees ~; ~( recd/LJr~cE.rf' ~c~ ~S : ~~~rUf ~ 2~ ~~~ ~~. cy i ~~ ~~~• u f ~, r~..~ jr ~ ~~ ~ ,~„.~ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY WHEREAS, after due advertisement, proposals were received and publicly opened by the Finance Department. at 3:00 p.m., on the 6th day of September, 2000, at the County Administration Building, 320 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, North Carolina, and the following proposals were received for Child Support Enforcement Services for the Department of Social Services, RFP # 00-0353: Fee of Total Net Collections Maximus, Inc. 14.20% DynCorp 14.25% Policy Studies 14.95% AND WHEREAS, the evaluation committee's recommendation to the New Hanover County Board of Social Services was to award to DynCorp; AND WHEREAS, after reviewing the recommendation of the evaluation committee, the New Hanover County Boazd of Social Services voted unanimously to accept the evaluation committee's recommendation and to recommend to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that the contract be awazded to DynCorp; AND WHEREAS, funds have been previously appropriated and are now in Account No. 110-530-5350-2000-3700 to cover this contract; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County that the contract for Child Support Enforcement Services for the Department of Social Services, RFP # 00-0353 be awarded to DynCorp at a fee of 14.25% of total net collections; and that the County is hereby authorized and directed to execute contract # 00-0353, contract form to be approved by the County Attorney. This 2nd day of October, 2000. (SEAL) Chairman, Board of County Commissioners • ATTEST: Clerk to the Board r MEMO To: New Hanover County Board of Social Services From: Child Support Bid Proposal Review Team Date: September 20, 2000 Re: Recommendation to Award Contract The county received three proposals for the Child Support Enforcement contract. The bidders were Policy Studies, Inc., MAXIMUS, Inc. and DynCorp Management Resources, Inc. All bidders committed to being able to do everything as requested in the bid proposal. None of the bidders had any exceptions to our requirements. There is no known corporate association between the present contractor and any of the bidders. The evaluation committee consisted of: Pat Melvin, Assistant County Manager Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Bruce Shell, Finance Director • Barbara McClure, Assistant Finance Director Karen Vincent, Assistant Director for Economic Services Amy Akin, Purchasing Agent The evaluation criteria were: Evaluation of proposal according to completeness, content, experience with child support enforcement programs, and the ability of the bidder and its staff. Organization size and structure of contractor's firm. County will make a determination if contractor's firm is adequately sized or capable of expansion to handle work to be assigned. Qualifications of staff to be assigned to the work. This will be determined from the organization support and experience information provided in the proposal form as well as any reference checks and investigations completed by the county. Contractor's understanding of the work to be performed. Total cost by quoting a percentage for all services to be performed. Contractor's ability to provide required insurance, bond, and applicable licenses. The costs quoted by the three bidders were not so different. See attached chart for cost comparison: The collection goal in the chart is based on collections for FY 99-00 which are referenced in the RFP. • The actual collection goal for the contract will be based on collections for calendar year 2000. Payment owed the contractor will depend on the amount collected. The revenue to the county (incentive and return) m the comparison is the state's projection for this current fiscal year. After review by individual committee members and review and discussion by the committee as a group, the committee's recommendation is to award the contract to DynCorp Management Resources. The bidders were ranked DynCorp first, Policies Studies second and MA~GMUS third. A summary of the evaluation for each is provided. DynCorp Management Resources, Inc. (Recommended for award) DynCorp is a strong, 53 year old, employee owned business which provides technology and out sourcing services for federal, state and local government agencies. They provide information technology services to NASA, H[JD and other government offices. This year DynCorp purchased GTE Information Systems, a leading provider of telecommunications, network management, wireless communications and e-commerce services. According to the 1999 report to stockholders, a division to provide services to state and local governments, DynCorp Management Resources, was started two years ago and is expected to grow at a high rate for the next few years. DynCorp's proposal was complete and thorough in detailing an understanding of the operations of the program in North Carolina and of the ACTS system. Their Project Manager • for this project was a member of and managed the ACTS Project team that provided successful conversion services to North Carolina. DynCorp plans to correct compliance issues of the current office and to exceed the collection goal set by the county. The company is currently operating in two North Carolina Counties, Beaufort and Onslow. While their experience has been short in these counties, both describe DynCorp as being flexible, cooperative and responsive. A reference check with another state in which DynCorp has been providing services for a longer period of time reinforced those observations. They described DynCorp also as being a relatively large company, fiscally sound, with a good knowledge of the IV-D program and a good employee training program. The cost quoted by DynCorp at 14.25% of collections was the second lowest. Policy Studies, Inc. Policy Studies, Inc. is a 15 year old, nationally recognized child support enforcement company and in fact pioneered the first privatized Child Support enforcement office in 1991 in Tennessee. The proposal submitted by Policy Studies, Inc. was very detailed. The company addressed some problems the County is having with the current contractor and how their processes would help remedy the problems. They appear to have done quite a bit of research into what • they could offer based on our current situation. They state they will exceed the goals set by the county. They have extensive experienced staff at the corporate level. 1 ,' \ - ,. r ~. While Policy Studies is not performing any child support enforcement in North Carolina at • this time, they do have extensive experience in other states. References were entirely positive and described a quality company. Policy Studies proposal, however, states they would not use specialized units such as locate, interstate, and customer service which we have found to be very productive. The cost quoted by Policy Studies at 14.95% was the highest. MAXIMUS MAXIMUS is a nationally recognized company with a lot of experience in child support. Their experience in North Carolina child support, however, is limited to having bought DMG while they had the contract to collect some of our more difficult cases. Their proposal was complete and thorough and contained a detailed transition plan showing they had done significant research on the county. They also plan to exceed the collection goal set by the county. They have extensive experienced staff at the corporate level. MA~ffMUS has had contracts in many states in child support enforcement and various other government programs such as welfare to work, child welfare services and day care. References described their relationship with MA,XIMIJS as adversarial from the beginning, and a high maintenance contract. They were described as nit picking as to what was in the scope of the contract. MAXIMUS frequently required more funding to complete the • contract. According to news articles, MAXIMUS has had contract problems in the past. In a child care contract in-Connecticut they had serious performance problems and at the same time negotiated a 50% increase in fees ($6 million) by threatening to pull out. In Florida; Lockheed Martin and MAXIMUS were paid $4.5 million for child support collection, only collected $207,000, and ended their contracts early. In West:. Virginia, Kenneth Roberts, a former project director at the Department of Health and Human Services, was jailed in 1996 for illegal activities involving MA~~MUS' bid on a child welfare services contract. MA~~IVIUS lost the contract. In 1993, in Arizona after child support workers charged that MA~~MUS had made data entry errors, the state had to return $250,000 in incorrectly assessed child support payments. In Nebraska,~in June 1995, following a dispute over the company's fees and a debate over privatization, the state legislature terminated its contract. The cost quoted by MAXIMUS at 14.2% was the lowest bid. It is the consensus of the review committee that too many concerns are raised by MAXIMUS' references and the media about their performance and about contract issues. The committee believes that the second lowest bidder, DynCorp, is capable of providing quality services to the county and should be awarded the contract. • .~ s-. .. , ,:. :. COST COMPARISON OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT BIDDERS A B C D E F Collection % of Anticipated Federal Revenue Cost in Goal Collections Payment to Financial (Incentives County to be Paid to Contractor Participa- and Dollars Contractor (A x B = C) tion (66%) Returns) (C minus D and E) MAXIMUS $8,126,355 14.2% $1,153,942 $761,602 $137,796 $254,544 DynCorp $8,126,355 14.25% $1,158,006 $764,284 $137,796 $255,926 Policy $8,126,355 14.95% $1,214,890 $801,827 $137,796 $275,267 Studies Contract $1,500,000 $990,000 $137,796 $372,204 Cap • • ~~...y - .~~-2~. f/w ~~ U Z COST COMPARISON OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT BIDDERS il~- Nrr51 ~~G-a~-. .3 s~+~ A B C D E F Collection % of Anticipated Federal Revenue Cost in Goal Collections Payment to Financial (Incentives County to be Paid to Contractor Participa- and Dollars Contractor (A x B = C) tion (66%) Returns) (C minus D and E) MA~~IlVIUS $8,126,355 14.2% $1,153,942 $761,602 $137,796 $254,544 DynCorp $8,126,355 14.25% $1,158,006 $764,284 $137,796 $255,926 Policy $8,126,355 14.95% $1,214,890 $801,827 $137,796 $275,267 Studies Contract $1,500,000 $990,000 $137,796 $372,204 Cap ~~~~ ,~n n` .C~ ~~~ ~~~.~ ~.~~~•. ~~ - oaf ~«e~~ ~~. ~ ~~~' ~ ~{ 4tlas .e.~t~ e~,( b t~ ~cPf. !.~- ~o ull~~+"~ /~rd~wsa.Q. ~ ~,~'d ~,~.. ~-0 9o a.G~.ea.d ~/ ~ -f -. J~leG~,,,- ~- ~~.ucnu.ac. ~ta,~~~c,~. ~-~'ts~ ~ri~~f C~or,rr - -~.hewed. 9~e/va.Qc~c. ts~~de.~ /G.s - e•~dear ~•s*os; ~c~o. 7'7-J - ,~~.--~ru.~~e~c.-a. ~uD - 5 e - QA- Comer ~~~-~`~~J• IBS ~ - ~r~ ~ ~ro~~lea. - He,~~S 4 ~tr-e mod e(~~i-t; ea,.ce~f . F~ S~rv; ccMS~ L~s~ d~ ~ (,~.a rs t~'tr~t e.,• e.a..,. l rx~-rw a~- v+f'' ~.lx./e Qac~occ~,. ! ra~lnt~u{ , Qr4 ~ Ct~,Md,E,~ ice( 1.. ~~ . ~ ~. 1zrw..r- ltlp D: r. l~ o ~G~.a r G'S Di r vs~ s fiy~ • 1 t`x~,~.ti a~tt s~ab/c , Tr'~-~!G rc~d i n G $ prYii~s9a~i`wt ~ ~U a~ ~ ~. ~ S i °'nUu diq , } ~. i ~ , ~ ^ it I , b N 4 r~. ;, ~°~ y . .~~iy~r~ ,]'3.+~,~ :,~,- `? , . J~ '' ~j ' =$':~`t ~ Y h ~c 4 #r%ti tit`S ='a ~t •3 ~ s , .. :JA . , .~ ,s ,.3 ~ e 4? ^ ~ i',a ~` * ~\. ..., yr. r.~'+*' •T "tike ~ - tr M { ror $~i .. n i - •-4,.. 't .C.j ,..1L ^~r1 ~'3 >. - :. i1Y~.. #a' .p . c - ~ i .~ 7 ' • ~~iZ.~r;~ '' . . r ~ ' 5 ~ v a.;• '' x.7.~ a • ~:`~ ~.. R.-.r~.~ Q.. k:." ;lei *~ . i > 1 `.,~ .. f ' `..a' ~ '~ $ .$-~"1 ' '~' " ~ ~" ~ ' . # i .. ~ . ,~ ra.~ a M i ,,,~` .. w ti. d- f fl S ~ . 'r ' ' ~ : ~ ,:i ~ .e4~. t. t 4` ? y 1 ?~ .~ ~ y$ z -!s _ Y,'~.~ U'~A 1 ~ «.. a" fi~t:..~ 4.f ~ n u'i+R s . '~. f. i.~ .s*'~v ~ i4 ,~{.i.~ ~ ~ 3. ~i _ e'~ ~'~f~ .. '~ . Y . 8~ a .`a ~ 4 ~ ~n t~ .. ~~. ~.~. 3 ~ r' x !~~' ~~ . ~ .. .. .. i. r Y Ft. ~ dt • ti~ t~. ' 1 ~' ~ ~ ( ~. c -l .Y~'.^u~.[ := s ~ W ~...~•~.~a..}i i ~ t i `w''ti?+' . t a 4, ~. .,^r , ~ ~4'~- ..+;.: i'. "~yr m:~~'7 i ~ ~'r"=~.~ ti.^ +.,. 1 • . <~ y; 4.^ ~, ~~ . - ! ~:~~ .~ w ~P~ .S Can.~~ ~ ? <x ' i ~ ' ~.` , of "~ ~ 4 " - i ~ i~ tR'~ ' '~. i~.C~i ...i s a ~ V~ ~..~ ... v'}K , 7 T F..., .+ s~:J ..'iS~.~1.. •«'iI 't,.~ ~.~,:..t a ~+. : 3'S _ A:N; -+. A~'r ~l >~' ~i'i Z . !i ,~ •~4 ~~ ~ . i -. ~~ , y ~. ~ . . r .: - ., J E ., •. • ~sS--<`. aP S ~ `s';^.-'v `~ ~ a ;.~~t ~ a,~~` ".' ,~ . ... ° r x - .. ~ • ~' .~ <,~.. ~ ..,3 ..F`~, : }rry ,;,« tr, ~b:';. ., .. ° y ,a; r -,4 ' ;, ~~~,F ~„ ~. .- ;a ~~ ~ . ,> ~ s~ t5 ,i, r..~ ~ .~ i 4 '».~ vl ~. ~.M' +'i"~ wt ,a L.'~~ e~45 },r°P,•.. tc4., •: ekt ti .~ .e M ~,i*a f .»r.r>y r, .}.A~r•.-..e .:` 1 S ~~'~ ~ «~ ' ""'I ' ~ f ~' r i y~.7.~~ +{~- ~i .lt,,. -a ., n `1 ° T s: ASS $tafftna - Management/Supervision: (4) - Direct Workers: (18) -Clerical Support: (3) -Automation Specialist Mileage, Travel, Meetings 8 Schools Operational Cost - Legal Services - Outposting: Facility Costs . Program Cost ~xisfing Administrative/Overhead Costs Allocated to Child SuRpOrt Revenues - Federal Financial Participation -Incentives and Returns -Costs in County Dollars State Revenues forAdminisfration/Overhead • $ 197,826 $ 667,026 $ 101,508 $' 32,694 $ 45,000 $ 432,000 $ 1,476,054 $ 325,241 $ 1,801,295 $ 1,188,855 $ 137,796 $ 311,553 $ 163,091 $ 1, 801, 295 a Child Support Take Back f Costs: DSS Sta fing - Management/Supervision: (4) $ 197,826 - Direct Workers: (18) $ 667,026 -Clerical Support: (3) $ 101,508 -Automation Specialist $ 32,694 Mileage, Travel, Meetings 8 Schools $ 45,000 Operational Cost ~ $ 432,000 -Legal Services - Outposting: Facility Costs 4 Program Cost $ 1,476,054 ' Existing Administrative/Overhead Costs Allocated f0 Child Su/,2AOrt $ 325,241 $ 1,801,295 Revenues - Federal Financial Participation $ 1,188,855 -Incentives and Returns $ 137,796 -Costs in County Dollars $ 311,553 State Revenues for Administration/Overhead $ 163,091 ' $ 1,801,295 • Child Support Take Back i Costs: DSS Staff ng - Management/Supervision: (4) $ 197,826 - Direct Workers: (18) $ 667,026 -Clerical Support: (3) $ 101,508 -Automation Specialist $' 32,694 1~lileage, Travel, Meetings 8 Schools $ 45,000 Operational Cost $ 432,000 -Legal Services - Outposting: Facility Costs a Program Cost $ 1,476,054 Existing Administrative/Overhead Costs A//ocafed to Child SuRport $ 325,241 $ 1,801,295 Revenues -Federal Financial Participation $ 1,188 855 ' -Incentives and Returns $ 137,796 -Costs in County Dollars $ 311,553 Sfate Revenues for Administration/Overhead $ 163,091 $ 1,801,295 • • Child Support Take Back Costs: DSS Staffing - Management/Supervision: (4) $ 197,826 - Direct Workers: (18) $ 667,026 - Clerical Support: (3) $ 101,508 -Automation Specialist $ 32,694 Mileage, Travel, Meetings & Schools $ 45,000 Operational Cost $ 432,000 -Legal Services - Outposting: Facility Costs Program Cost $ 1,476,054 ,.Existing Administrative/Overhead Cosfs Allocates/ t0 Child Su~~~ort $ 325,241 $ 1,801,295 Revenues - Federal Financial Participation $ 1,188 855 -Incentives and Returns $ 137,796 -Costs in County Dollars $ 311,553 State Revenues for Administration/Overhead $ 163,091 $ 1,801,295 • Child Su~aort Take Back Costs: DSS Staffing - Management/Supervision: (4) -Direct Workers: (18) -Clerical Support: (3) -Automation Specialist mileage, Travel, Meetings & Schools OAeratlonal COSt ` -Legal Services - Outposting: Facility Costs Program Cost risting Administrative/Overhead Costs Allocated fo Child SuRpOrf Revenues - Federal Financial Participation -Incentives and Returns -Costs in County Dollars State Revenues for Administration/Overhead $ 197,826 $ 667,026 $ 101,508 $ 32,694 $ 45,000 $ 432,000 $ 1,476,054 $ 325,241 $ 9,801,295 $ 1,188,855 $ 137,796 $ 311,553 $ 163,091 $ 1,801,295 .. ` ~ : tl Child Sunnort Take Back SS Costs: Staffing D - Management/Supervision: (4) $ 197,826 -Direct Workers: (18) $ 667,026 -Clerical Support: (3) $ 101,508 -Automation Specialist $ 32,694 Mileage, Travel, Meetings 8 Schoo/s $ 45,000 . Operational Cost ~ $ 432,000 - Legal Services - Outposting: Facility Costs Program Cost $ 1,476,054 Existing Adminisfrative/Overhead Costs Allocater~ t0 Child Su(~pOl'f $ 325,241 $ 9,809,295 Revenues - Federal Financial Participation $ 1,188 855 - Incentives and Returns $ 137,796 -Costs in .County Dollars $ 311,553 Stafe Revenues for Administration/Overhead $ 163,091 $ 9,809,295 To: New Hanover County Board of Social Services From: Child Support Bid Proposal Review Team Date: September 20,.2000 Re: Recommendation to Award Contract The county received three proposals for the Child Support Enforcement contract. The bidders were Policy Studies, Inc., MAXIMUS, Inc. and DynCorp Management Resources, Inc. All bidders committed to being able to do everything as requested in the bid proposal. None of the bidders had any exceptions to our requirements. There is no known corporate association between the present contractor and any of the bidders. The evaluation committee consisted of: Pat Melvin, Assistant County Manager Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Bruce Shell, Finance Director Barbara McClure, Assistant Finance Director Karen Vincent, Assistant Director for Economic Services Amy Akin, Purchasing Agent The evaluation criteria were: Evaluation of proposal according to completeness, content, experience with child support enforcement programs, and the ability of the bidder and its staff. Organization size and structure of contractor's firm. County will make a determination if contractor's firm is adequately sized or capable of expansion to handle work to be assigned. Qualifications of staff to be assigned to the work. This will be determined from the organization support and experience information provided in the proposal form as well as any reference checks and investigations completed by the county. Contractor's understanding of the work to be performed. Total cost by quoting a percentage for all services to be performed. Contractor's ability to provide required insurance, bond, and applicable licenses. The costs quoted by the three bidders were not so different. See attached chart for cost comparison. The collection goal in the chart is based on collections for FY 99-00 which are . referenced in the RFP. The actual collection goal for the contract will be based on collections for calendar year 2000. Payment owed the contractor will depend on the amount collected. The ~..~ revenue to the county (incentive and return) in the comparison'is the state's projection for this current fiscal year. After review by individual committee members and review and discussion by the committee as a group, the committee's recommendation is to award the contract to DynCorp Management Resources. The bidders were ranked DynCorp first, Policies Studies second and MAXIMUS third. A summary of the evaluation for each is provided. DynCorp Management Resources, Inc. (Recommended for award) DynCorp is a strong, 53 eay r old, employee owned business which provides technology and out sourcing services for federal, state and local_go~ernment agencies. They provide ~~~ ~ information technology services to NASA, HUD and other government offices. This ~.~g ~-+~ year DynCorp purchased GTE Information Systems, a leading provider of ~ telecommunications, network management, wireless communications and e-commerce ~~~ services. According to the 1999 report to stockholders, a division to provide services to ~~`n ~'~ state and local governments, DynCorp Management Resources, was started two years -~'~~ ago and is expected to grow at a high rate for the next few years. DynCorp's proposal was complete and thorough in detailing an understanding of the operations of the program in North Carolina and of the ACTS system. Their Project Manager for this project was a member of and managed the ACTS Project team that provided successful conversion services to North Carolina. DynCorp plans to correct compliance issues of the current office and to exceed the collection goal set by the county. The company is currently operating in two North Carolina Counties, Beaufort and Onslow. While their experience has been short in these counties, both describe DynCorp as being flexible, cooperative and responsive. A reference check with another state in which DynCorp has been providing services for a longer period of time reinforced those observations. They described DynCorp also as being a relatively large company, fiscally sound, with a good knowledge of the IV-D program and a good employee training program. . The cost quoted by DynCorp at 14.25% of collections was the second lowest. Policy Studies, Inc. Policy Studies, Inc. is a 15 year old, nationally recognized child support enforcement company and in fact pioneered the first privatized Child Support enforcement office in 1991 in Tennessee. The proposal submitted by Policy Studies, Inc. was very detailed. The company addressed some problems the County is having with the current contractor and how their processes would help remedy the problems. They appear to have done quite a bit of research into what they could offer based on our current situation. They state they will exceed the goals set by the county. They have extensive experienced staff at the corporate level. While Policy Studies is not performing any child support enforcement m North Carolina at this time, they do have extensive experience in other states. References were entirely positive and described a quality company. Policy Studies proposal, however, states they would not use specialized units such as locate, interstate, and customer service which we have found to be very productive. The cost quoted by Policy Studies at 14.95% was the highest. MAXIMUS MAXIMUS is a nationally recognized company with a lot of experience in child support. Their experience in North Carolina child support, however, is limited to having bought DMG while they had the contract to collect some of our more difficult cases. Their proposal was complete and thorough and contained a detailed transition plan showing they had done significant research on the county. They also plan to exceed the collection goal set by the county. They have extensive experienced staff at the corporate level. MAXIMUS has had contracts in many states in child support enforcement and various other government programs such as welfare to work, child welfare services and day care. References described their relationship with MAXIMUS as adversarial from the beginning, and a high maintenance contract. They were described as nit picking as to what was in the scope of the contract. MAXIMUS frequently required more funding to complete the contract. According to news articles, MAXIMUS has had contract problems in the past. In a child care contract in Connecticut they had serious performance problems and at the same time negotiated a 50% increase in fees ($6 million) by threatening to pull out. In Florida, Lockheed Martin and MAXIMUS were paid $4.5 million for child support collection, only collected $207,000, and ended their contracts early. In West Virginia, Kenneth Roberts, a former project director at the Department of Health and Human Services, was jailed in 1996 for illegal activities involving MAXIMUS' bid on a child welfare services contract. MAXIMUS lost the contract. In 1993, in Arizona, after child support workers charged that MAXIMUS had made data entry errors, the state had to return $250,000 in incorrectly assessed child support payments. In Nebraska, in June 1995, following a dispute over the company's fees and a debate over privatization, the state legislature terminated its contract. The cost quoted by MAXIMUS at 14.2% was the lowest bid. It is the consensus of the review committee that too many concerns are raised by MAXIMUS' references and the media about their performance and about contract issues. The committee believes that the second lowest bidder, DynCorp, is capable of providing quality services to the county and should be awarded the contract. • ., ~ SEP-26-2000 TUE 02 44 Phl NHCDSS PA POD FRX N0, 9103414363 (~uestiuns for References: 1. Uvcrall how satisfied arc you with the service they arc providing? 2. In what areas do you think they have real strengths and why? 3, Weaknesses and why? ~, t lave you seen art increase in court tune since the private comp took over? S, tiow is the relationship with the CV-A ,court and legal community, employers? 6. Cttstomcr Service? 7. Have they rnct their goals? 8. ]~o you elan to rcnegottate at the end of the contract? Continue? 9. C'ayr„enl arrans;entents - % or fee for service 1 Q. Erttployee satisfacti~n7 ) 1 l . 1-tave aggressive tactics caused any proUletns? ~ "~~`~`''``"° °~'~` I `J l~i~euls ~ ~ ~-Q.cro M,a.~~u,,,~ Past-its Fax Nopte 7671 ~at° zL 0~ a10~~.s~`, ~I^~c~f`icCG' :3~r ~~ (From ~ ,, U ra_r~.~ ~_) • E'honc k ~'honc 11 ~ _ 1 Faxk (O ~37 ~' ~~ ~ / 7 S~ Fax N P, O1 L_ / M1 ~~~~.j~'t r4A~..l~~. t~~ t~ • ~4.K Sh T„! t •.M1~r i '~~.~.1~ p SEP-26-2000 TUE 02 45 Phl NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0. 9103414363 P, 02 • References; MAXlMUS David C;illiarYt, Program Manager (:hi}d Support Division Dept oi` I•iumart Resources State of Tennessee I. Well Satisfied 2. Overall knowledge of federal rt:t;ulations re: child support program, Administrative strengths in ollicc Operation. 3, Na marked weaknesses, Very responsive to needs the ~latc cxpr•esscs aad to complaints. Work hard to correct. 4~, Can't address. Wasn't here when they started S. Quite good G. C'an't address. Might call Richard haigc G15-313-5344. 7. We have just be{;un to attach liquidated damages to goals. Maximus has done pretty well • 8. Will ga out on bids. Would not hesitate to award them the contract. 9, % basis. Varies from o{i•ice to ofTice. Upwards of 10%. I•lighest } G%. Locking at l0- l2 in urban areas and } 5- I G in rural 10. Can't speak to employee satisfaction. Relatively stable staff- not a lot of turnover. 11. Do not get corrlplaints. • ` SEP-26-2000 TUE 02:45 PM NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0, 9103414363 P, 03 Maximus Mark Henry, Chicf of Staff State of Mississippi number ir1 the hid was the tna,in switchboard nurrtbcr for the state. They didn't know a Mark Nenty, l ask for child support enforcement. Alsce McDaniels Dircclor C`.hild Support Enforccnicnt State c>f Mississippi GO ] -:i 59-3101 Maximus pulled out 8/3 i hccause they could not nc~otiate a new contract. '1 % 1 ,~_ 1, c~ n,~ T ~ <~.<.~ ~ '~~'.-~pr. SEP-26-2000 TUE 02 45 PM NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0. 9103414363 P, 04 ~)YNCORP Su~~nne Gray, Director Cieaufort County DSS only weal with DYNCORP effective Sept. }. 1 asked about the relationship with Corrvantis, She says Dennis was trying to get UYNCORh to absorb his company at the time of negotiating the Onslow contract. Ii<er eo. manaber tells her that tell thrc~ugli, They could not get together on price. That had fallen away by the time i3caufot•t went over. DYNCORI' assumed Dennis's debt to F3caufort county (100,000), Shc says no bid was done, DYNCORP approached the commissioners, C)enr~is agreed to give up the contract to them and it was done. She did not understand how it was done without an Ri~P. Shc says transition went very smoothly. (:orrvantis was renting space in her building. 'C'he day he finished his contract he was out of there alonS with everything that was his. HCr concern with DYNCORP is that they ai•e so new in child support arena. No percentage. Straight fee for sc~vice • Using contracted attan,ey that Corwantis had. C:o~nuy Commissioner is contract administrator ~ ~ I SEP-26-2000 TUE 02 45 PM NHCDSS PA POD FRX NC. 9103414363 P, 05 l)YNCORf' Jahn Burd, Director Onslow County l)SS had DYNCC)RP since July 2000 satlSllCd 2. They were not our first choice. PSI looked better to us. Putting DYNCURP second wasn't anything against them. With Gorrvantis there was friction buildinb up between the contracted attorney and the court. I thought they should have an in-house attorney. DYNCORP did trot have one in proposal, PSI did. After contract was awarded 1 talked to them about that and PSl ]tut art in-hc,usc attorney on. They did not have to. 1 thought that was good. DYI~ICORP wanted to change something minor in the contract right at the tune it was to be signed. It would have meant more meetings to get it approved and could have been a real show stopper. It was trivial. Looking back they were right. I was impressed with the way they handled the prablern, They Ict it go and were willing to bend. • 3. No ~. 'I'Itis was one of the pr•oblcros. Very little court involvement before privatisation. Sec above. DYNCC)Rf' recognized the need for the in house attorney to smooth the ruffled fcathel•s in the court, They started meeting quarterly with the court anti with us to resolve problems. 5, "There were problems with C:orrvantis nat paying bills. 1)YNCORP has worked hard to mend fences in the community 6. ']"here are always problems wills ctistorner service. With C;orrvanlis, the customer' service phone system was a problem. [t didn't work very well. Under DYNCORI' it is working heifer. I am not getting complaint calls now. 7. 'lbo early 8. No performance reason not to. Would go out for bids. 9. % of collection 13.9% with cap {0. 1=;rnployces were not happy with us so 1 really c~'lnnot speak to their satisfaction with I)YNC:URI'. • SEP-26-2000 TUE 02:45 PM NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0. 9103414363 P, 06 • 1 hive no reason to say stay sway from DYNCnRP, l was Ind am concerned aUout the lack of depth iii the child sup}~ort ticlci. The two individuals we nave dealt with arc fine. Su~l;cstecl linding ll~e Ncw York Times April 14 article rc MAXIMUS. u ., L SEP-26-2000 TUE 02 46 PM NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0, 9103414363 - P, OS PSl Nick Younl;, Director Hampton/Chesapeake, Virginia ~~ 1 las been running the new hire program fr~6 years, Running two of state run ol~ces ful service Since 2/9~. . Could not be happier. Absolutely wonderful. I SO% exceed expectation, I.7oes not know how to fail. 2, Personnel rnana~;ernent, technical experience, customer service and performance. ;t. No weaknesses.. 4. No they do a better job -decrease court time 5. Very outstanding -work well with the courts - go the extra mile. G, lictter' than tl,e state, strength the same leadership style • 7. ~f:xcccdcd 8. Already have once, Win-win situation with Vn. Cadillac of child suppot't companies - can't da any better 9. 'Think 1 I or IZ% - Pay attention to performance and don't worry about what you pay them l0. PS1 hired employees from Lockheed, The employees had been leaving -turned arotmd - love working for PSI • SEP-26-2000 TUE 02 47 PM NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0. 9103414363 P, O1 • I~YNCOIZt~ J.11. (Jim) Robertson, lV-D C)ircctor State of Kansas t e 7671 Post-it' F'ax No D2t0 2 ~ QO pages ~~ tt To ~ ~ t,L C. ~° rJ ~ r ~ From ~ ~.,r ~ Co,/Dept. Co. Phono A Phona M R / _ 7 Feu A O .. ~ / _ 1(v .Z fax 11 '~~ ~ (~ Go 1. Very Satisfied - DYNCOKP covers scvcn c nties. Enforcement only -the state does intakc;/establishmesl t. ~,~~.(r.- I{ad contract with MA7CIMUS reviousl . It was always adversarial. Gnt of a to day ~~` ~ pryblems nit-picking as o what was in the scope of the contract. Right ot~ the bat there were issues as simple as havtn~~ an 800#. Th decide .aw~a)r lvitl~. The tone was scl and negative from the bcginrting, It was a~lti~h maintenance coi_ ~ ram of the same with DYNCORP. Just tl~c opposite. 'I'hcy are very responsive. With DYNCORP, if we have a concern, we noti['y their management. 'they take Care of the problem. We have only had two calls. MAXI MUS is A big organization. Some may be good. His with Paul Hogan was not good. Bill Ucneen is obnoxious and adversarial. Bil! Stragc did pretty hood job, took the company line. MA)CIMUS was very professional when the contract ended. Would never contract with Mn do - enforcement. • 2. UYNGOttP strengths include pt7marily the knowledge oftlle lV-D program, backing oF'a relatively larbe company. Nut a cash flow problem. Scans to really want to make Kansas happy. Very responsive. Recognize their reputation is on the line. Response excellent, 3, SIiII in start up phase. 'They are building the IV-D division: First day of the contract they had rtew person from PS1 (Yam Uwens) who was too ncwv and did not know DYNCORP po]ic;es, Slte had to check with other people. Thought might have made a mistake. She rented U-[caul trucks ltcrsclf and got 17~ove done, Vcry responsive and operational. He doesn't have to deal with them ever day like he did MAXIMUS. DYNCOI~P Management will handle, # of people are 1V-O professionals, 4. 't'heir attorneys spent a great deal oI'time with the judges -How case we org. Spent Eiu~e with Judbcs doing PK. More cases arc handled but maybe less court time; used, Camc to a more ei~icictlt way. Have tl~cir own staff attorney totally 1V-D. Time management specialists from South Carolina work on special parts of the job. Developed a case work method. Use { SWnT ~ teams for s}7ecial projects. 5. Really worked on the courts, Employers have bone well. Don't know a lot of specifics. Excellent rclalionship with state IV-!), Very cooperative -comes from company pol;cy, 6. Vcry good, They set up a special customer service unit in 'Topeka for their scvcn SEP-26-2000 TUE 02;48 Phi NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0. 9103414363 P, 02 • counties. I'cople given 840ti. Not aware of any complaints. Only the two calls mentioned earlier, '1'hty handled, They secrn to train thcnT well, if it is accessary to involve the caseworker, they will. 7. They have so far. '1'hcy haven't had a years experience tlyerc. They are doin' what they said. 8. Contract runs t'or 3 years. Based on experience co liar he would contract again. 9. Monthly billing. Fixed price contract, Paid a % of collections in the past. 1n Kansas they are I~avirig trouble wit}T their budgM so they needed a fixed amount, KP was the low bidder. MAXIMUS charged a %. Were constant] wanting more S, We did not agree. MAXIMUS would say it is out o the scope of the contract. I~AX[MUS is a very intimidating company to me, I~[e bets he will gel a call thrc:atenin,; some kind of court action because of this reference. Ile said Tenn had similar problenTs but tlTCy did not tell him when he called t"or a reference. He thinks they were being sued I>y MAXIMUS. "Corporate bullies'- maybe not all but just the peopIc he dealt with, Fle slat XIMUS com lained that the ~* •cs would be referred tc~ them and more S could be c llccted and that was not the case, Same thing happeucd in • N MAXIMUS sued the state of Tcnn because they said the RFp was misleading, 1(), DYNC:ORi~ did not hi~•e eveiyoiTe. Said they told hi~~~ they wanted 1/3 to be new blood. Staf} recognise they arc a good company to work for, Paid staf~'a little Icss than i~nC°rp MAXIMUS. He has riot noticed a turn over. Went through the interview rrocess. C' E .... aw SEP-26-2000 TUE 02 48 PM NHCDSS PA POD FAX K0, 9103414363 P,Si Sue Crimes, 1V-D Director St~.tc of West Virginia l . Very satisfied -treat company -very cooperative - no problems 2. Customer service was very important to us. We are still trying to find what the perlccl mix is. Wltat is enoubh lines. What are too many. 3. ~ Quite a bit of turnover initially. Thev took the state staff: 'T'hey found quite a bit cyl` di tlcrence• 4. T}te cour~i sets the tirrte allowed S. With legs! ~tnd employers very hood. 1"hcy just took over the new hire prograr~t 1s well and we arc thrilled. With iV-n they have the same problems that exist in all non privati7cd offices. P, 03 G. Make a very good effort in tryinb to provide customer service. They have goals and expectations for resolving any complaints timely, We still f;et calls saying they can't bet ® through. They have the tartest caseload in the state (Charleston). Thus the concern over loo many lines, too few lines, 7. Yes 8. Currently on a five year contract with renewal each year. Either party can gel out at the end cif any ye~~ir. 9. 18%. Tl,e percentabe did not etiant;e but the coo went riL~ t'ach ycar. l ~. 'Think turnover has really decreased. They let a couple t;o recently because they stepped outside agency policy, Tft .~ E•,~~,ect their managers especia lv to r~~,~h it nnli~~,, i thong}rt this was hood. They bivc: employees a quarterly bonus for performance. f- SEP-26-2000 TUE 02:48 PM NHCDSS PA POD FAX N0, 9103414363 P, 04 fS1 Nick Young, Director Ilacnptar~/t:hesapcake, Virginia i-las been runninb the new hire program ftcf6 years. Running two of state run offices ful service since 2/99. 1. Could not be happier. Absolutely wonderful. 150% exceed expectation. rocs not know how tc~ fai1. 2. Pcrsonne} mana~;cment, technical experience, customer service and per!`ormance. 3. No weaknesses. 4. No they do a better job -decrease court ii~ne S. Very outstanding ,work wet} with the courts - ~o the cxtr~t mile. , G. Better than the state, strength the same; leadership style 7, Exceeded 8. Already have once, Win~win situation wit}t VA. (;adillac of child support companies - ' can t do any better ~• 'Think } ] or 12% - Pa a,~ttetition to performance and don't worry about what you y ~ them l0. PSI hired employees from Lockheed. 1'hc employees had been lcavin~; -turned around love working for f'Sl 4 ,. A T f ° DSS Sta fing - Management/Supervision: (4) $ 197,826 - Direct Workers: (18) $ 667,026 -Clerical Support: (3) $ 101,508 -Automation Specialist $ 32 694 Mileag.Q4 Travel, Meetings 8 Schools $ 45,000 Operational Cost ~ $ 432,000 - Legal Services - Outposting: Facility Costs P rogram Cost $ 1,476,054 e xisting Administrative/Overhead Costs Allocated to Child Su~oort $ 325,241 $ 1,801,295 Revenues - Federal Financial Participation. $ 1,188 855 ' -Incentives and Returns $ 137,796 -Costs in County Dollars $ 311,553 State Revenues for Administration/Overhead $ 163,091 $ 1,801,295 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Library Presenter: Judy O'Neal . Contact: David Paynter SUBJECT: Consideration of Acceptance of Coastal Consumer Health Library into New Hanover County's Public Library System BRIEF SUMMARY: New Hanover Health Network requests that the Board of Commissioners consider relocating the Medical Center's Coastal Consumer Health Library to the County's Public Library. It is requested that the Consumer Health Library be kept intact and in a conspicuous location within the Public Library. The projected cost of accepting and operating it immediately, without renovations to the Public Library is $46,000, for FY 00-01, and $60,000 for FY 01.02, which includes the hiring of a Sr. Librarian to carryout duties involved in operating the Consumer Health Library, effective January 1, 2001. The projected cost of minimal renovations to current Library space is $40,000. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Consider acceptance of Coastal Consumer Health Library into New Hanover County's Public Library System. If accepted, approve new position of Sr. Librarian, and direct staff to prepare budget amendment appropriating funds from fund balance in the amount $46,000 (without renovations) or $86,000 (with renovations). FUNDING SOURCE: The funds will need to be appropriated from fund balance and included in future budgets. Staff will pursue grant funds which may be available to support the cost of operations in future years. ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: BOUNTY COMMI~IONQt~~ APPROVED ®------- REJECTED ^ REMOVED ^ POSTPONED ^ ~ ~~ FIEARi~ / ~ ~ ' G,~~r .._._ID/oL,100 ~ ®~'Y'~~1~t~3 C] ~~~~~~ ~' 0~~~~x'~T2~f t i~9A3H ~' a~ l^. COMMUNITY HEALTH LIBRARY COST- 9/26/00 Moving Costs Training Supplies Printing Telephone/Postage r~ Cataloging ~§~~:;' Temp Salaries for re-cataloging Senior Librarian Total *one-time costs ** salary based on six months ,,~ . $ 2,000 " 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 10,000 25,000 $46,000** -NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 Regular Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Library Presenter: Judy O'Neal Contact: David Paynter ~ . SUBJECT: Consideration of Acceptance of Coastal Consumer Health Library into New Hanover County's Public Library System :µ BRIEF SUMMARY: New Hanover Health Network requests that the Board of~Commissioners consider relocating the Medical Center's Coastal Consumer Health Library to the County's Public Library, It is requested that the Consumer Health Library be kept intact and in a conspicuous location within the Public Library. The projected cost of accepting and operating it immediately, without renovations to the Public Library is $71,000, for FY 00.01, and $60,000 for.FY 01.02, which includes the hiring of a Sr. Librarian to carryout duties involved in operating the Consumer Health Library. The projected cost of minimal renovations to current Library space is $40,000. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS Consider acceptance of Coastal Consumer Health Library into New Hanover County's Public Library System. If accepted, approve new position of Sr, Librarian, and direct staff to prepare budget amendment appropriating funds from fund balance in the amount $71,000.(without renovations) or $111,000 (with renovations). FUNDING'SOURCE: .The funds will need to be appropriated from fund balance and included in future budgets. FF ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ~, LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. ~ ~~ f COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COM ENTS: • 7 To: Pat Melvin, Assistant County Manager From: David M. Paynter Re: Community Health Library Date: September.26, 2000 Attached is a projected budget for the operation of the Community Health Library. In order to provide this service, I have included funds for a Community~Health Librarian. Existing staff will absorb much of the support work for this position. On going costs would be approximately $60,000/ year or less than half the current budget under. the hospital. The New Hanover Medical Foundation has agreed to provide $10,000/year for three years to cover the costs of books and other health resources. The Library would apply for a grant from the Cape Fear Medical Foundation to renovate space in the Main Library to accommodate this collection and service. COMMUNITY HEALTH LIBRARY COST- 9/26/00 Moving Costs Training Supplies Printing i 1,000 Telephone/Postage . 1,000 . Cataloging Temp Salaries for re-cataloging 10,000 '~ Senior Librarian 50,000 Total 71,000 *one-time costs $ 2,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 8 t \, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS , REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 Regular Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: County Manager Presenter: Dave Weaver Contact: Dave Weaver SUBJECT: ' Consideration of Approval of Formation of a Parks and Gardens Advisory Task Force BRIEF SUMMARY: The attached sheet outlines the proposed mission and composition of an advisory task force for addressing concerns about the proposed re-organization of the Cooperative Extension Service, including the Arboretum and Airlie Gardens, and the Parks Department. The initial intent is to develop a Department of Gardens, with emphasis on including operating, managing and developing rsources for Airlie Gardens and the Arboretum, in conjunction with maintaining and strengthening the link with the Master Gardeners- Cooperative Extension Service (CES) program. Please note that this Task Force is structured in a way that there is no need to advertise for applicants. This should allow the Task Force to report to the Board by its November 13 meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the Board establish this advisory task force as outlined. FUNDING SOURCE: , NA ATTACHMENTS: .,~ .~ . taskforce. ~ C, REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ~ Recommend approval. ~~~,~ I ~-~,~' ~ COMMISSIONERS'. ACTIONS/CO'MMENTS: • COUNTY COMMISSIONi~ APPROVED [~ :. REJECTED p . REMOVED p, POSTPONED !~ ~ ~ v FiEARiJ ~ ; ... r PARKS AND GARDEN ADVISORY TASK FORCE MISSION: To explore and discuss the issues and concerns that must be addressed in evaluating options for reorganizing the County's Cooperative Extension Service, which presently includes the Arboretum and Airlie Garden, and the Parks Department, in order to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of management of County facilities. The initial intent is to develop a Department of Gardens with emphasis on including operating, managing and developing resources for Airlie Gardens and the Arboretum. Emphasis is also placed on maintaining and strengthening the link between County facilities and the Master Gardeners/Cooperative Extension (CES) program.The Task Force.will provide an advisory report to the Board of Commissioners by the Board's November 13. meeting: ' COMPOSITION OF THE TASK FORCE The Task Force will be composed of the chairman or their designees of the groups listed below, and the individuals listed below. The task force will hold an informal hearing early in the process to listen to all other interested members of the general public. Assistant County Manager, Moderator Airlie Foundation, Chairman or designee ~ Arboretum Foundation, Chairman or designee Friends of Airlie, President or designee Cooperative Extension Service Advisory Council, Chairman or designee Master Gardeners Association, President or designee °® . i . Parks Advisory Board; Chairman or designee Parks Foundation, Chairman or designee NCSU-CES representative from Raleigh office ,~ -A~r e=~i~ms ~r=1~s=~e~r Human Resources Director ~.~~ ~ ~ ^~ wvJ~ h ~u.v rC^.~1v6®~~~„~n/t by ,tp~~~ p , ~ u~.{,1~~''. ~ ~ ~ ~:3'ut~"~1~~1 1 p ~, ~~~~~~~~~ cti~~~x~a ~n t __ • ~~ • • MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18,.2000 PAGE 16 Director. This occurred late Saturday night after a conversation with Dr. Ort on Friday that did not indicate this change would occur, which; in his opinion, means the County was blind sided. . ~ Dr. Zublena apologized to County Manager O'Neal and stated the N. C. Cooperative Extension Service appreciates the partnership with New Hanover County. The idea of establishing • _ a Task Force to thoroughly study the issue is an excellent idea and hopefully; representatives from the Master Gardeners Program and the Arboretum will be involved in the review process. The willingness of the County to pay half of the salary at $40,000 is appealing to the N. C. Cooperative • Extension.Service. ' - Chairman Caster requested County Manager O'Neal to coordinate the Task Force with . ` representatives from all agencies and departmentsinvolved such as the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, Airlie Gardens Foundation Board of Directors, Cooperative Extension Service, Master `' Gardeners, at-large citizens, N. C. Cooperative Extension Service, etc. He requested a motion to `; establish a Task Force to study the issue.. , Discussion followed on how the Task Force will be appointed. Vice-Chairman Greer suggested requesting each organization to provide two representatives with the Board ratifying the. ' j `~ appointments. He also recommended establishing a time frame of 60 days for the Task Force to ' present the recommendation to the -Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Caster called for a motion. , • Motion: Commissioner Birzenieks MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Davis, to take the , r following actions: ` 1. Create a New Hanover County Gardens Department . _ 2. Increase county funding in the amount of $40,000 to "the New Hanover County • . Cooperative Extension Service to avoid a loss this department's salary. budget. 3. Appoint a Task Force composed of representatives from agencies and departments .. involved, at-large community representatives, and the New Hanover County Director of Human Resources to be charged with studying and preparing an organizational structure for the Gardens Department with special focus on Airlie Gardens and the. _ Arboretum and to study the relationship between N. C. Cooperative Extension Service. and New Hanover County. .Once .the Task Force is appointed, a '. recommendation is to be presented to the. Board of County Commissioners within 60 days. ~'~ Upon vote; the 1VIOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.. , Mr. Neal Patrick, President of the Arboretum Foundation, stressed the urgency of appointing • the Task Force and stated with the amount of distrust and misinformation, there is a great deal of concern at the Arboretum. When visiting the Arboretum yesterday; he noticed an employee was moving personal items from her office. He urged the Board to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Commissioner Davis stated since the County is willing to donate $40,000 to keep the • ~ programs in operation at Cooperative Extension Service, the level of distrust should be quelled among the employees.. ' APPROVAL OF CONTRACT #O1-0063 WITH TINDALL CORPORATION FOR PRECAST ' CONCRETE CELLS FOR THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY JAIL PROJECT County Manager O'Neal reported that two contract awards are before the Board: (1) award - of the contract for the precast concrete cells; and (2) award of the contract for the. early site work ' contract. The second bid for the site work was opened on September 13; 2000, and this proposal • required a great deal of analysis because it was lower than anticipated and needed a complete review. . ' Project Engineer Greg Thompson and the Engineering Staff have worked many hours in analyzing • - both bids before presenting the contracts to the Commissioners for approval. - L ~ • ~ ~ ~ , . , NEW~HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ," ,, _ .. , _ ~ " .REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ~ ," ~ . ." , ~ . , :Meeting Date: 10/D2/00 ... . .a _ ; ~ . Regular`Item # :7.1 Estimated Time: ~ Page Number: _ ', - ~+ - .z " Department: ~ Planhing ~ Rresenter: Dexter Mayes " ~° :.Contact:, Baird Stewart. .. ~ _ SUBJECT: ~~ ~ _ rt "'a.. ~ r " Z=710, 08/OO~From AR AirportaResidential to Al Airport.lndustrial • ~~ BR1EF SUMMARY: , " ~ .. The subject properties are located at'the intersection of North Kerr Avenue, Gordon Road and <~ - `. ~~.~ Farley°Drive. This area was orginally zoned in the Airport District in 1976. The petitioner is requestng`.a rezoning from Airporf ResicJential to Airport Ihdustrial. The subject parcels are in close ;proximity to fhe property owned by the Airport Authority. ,Therefore, in the future the :.~ ' Airport may be,interested in acquiring some this property. Tfie configuration of the. parcels ~. ",combined with the setbacks and buffering required for the A-I district would severely limit their developable area. The opposite corner•frorn the subject parcels is zoned Conditional-Use A-,I. ~'_ r Prior to the conditional use A-I, there was a convenience store in that location : The staff. . ,, recommends denial of the request. - ~ ~ ~ " " .. ` " RECOMMENDED. MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: The.appficant :Charles Joyce presented his request, emphasizing his desire to sell the property. - . w . , . - Ope adjacent neighbor spoke in opposition. After some discussion about different-.zoning options ` ~ .. anal the.nearby.neigfiborhoods, the Planning. Board voted unanimously to recommend denial of _ " "the request - . .. FUNDING SOURCE: ~. n/a .. - , ~ rt. . ;<< .. ATTACHMENTS: ,, ~. - " ,. .. ". 3 ... ' REVIEWED BY:', r .. _ 1 'LEGAL: ~ FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A s " ., ~ ,.. _ - ~ ,.. _ COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ,. , .. . ~. `COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ~ - ,n . ," _ ~'©I.1NTY CO.MMI~SION~~~ - ... - . ~ APPROVED C7 ` . .. . ,. .: ~ , ,, REJECTED. 5" ~ , _ .. REMOVED ~ p r v POSTPONED L~~ `: ~ 1 .~'~ EA -' / ~ ~~ ,~ . .. -" - ...,- ,: CASE: Z-710, 08/00:. ~ ARPLICANT: Charles Joyce ~ ',. REQUEST: From AR Airport Residential to AL Airport Industrial. - ACREAGE: 2.72 Acres . ~ - .. . LOCATION: Intersection of North Kerr, Gordon Road, and Farley Drive: LAND CLASS: Urban Transition -The purpose of the Urban Transition class is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and public service del Resid eed 2.5 unrts'per'acre`witliin the.' ' _ ~ential development can exc Urban Transition area proyided.the development is adequately designed ' fo be compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land usesand is served by,adequate public facilities. .. ,. ~, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION 813/00:.. The applicant Mr. ,Charles Joyce presented his request, emphasizing his desire,.to. sell the , property. One adjacent neighbor spoke in opposition. After some discussion, about different. ; : ~ ; zoning options and the problems that would be result from certain residential uses and their impacts on nearby neighborhoods, the Planning Board unanimously voted to recorrimend denial ., of the petition... ~ - t • ', 3 , STAFF SUMMARY: ' ~` The subject properties are located at the intersection of North Kerr Avenue, Gordon Road - and Farley Drive. This area was originally zoned in the Airport District in October 1976. The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from Airport Residential to Airport Industrial. ~ ' '~ ~ '~ ' In an effort to minimize aircraft hazards, the Airport zoning districts were established to ~'` limit the development of land within the vicinity of the Airport to low density development., The _ . Airport Industrial District was established to encourage the types of development havinb ' "maximum compatibility with aircraft operations; to protect and to promote the public utility of the Airport; and, to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of New Hanover County by preventing the.creation of,hazards. ~ ~ ~ _ The subject parcels are located in close proximity to the property owned by the Airport Authority. Therefore, in the future the Airport may be interested in acquiring some of this property. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the growth of t_he_ airport and. recommends_thaf the County support the airport master plan. The configuration of these parcels combined with the setbacks and buffering required for the A-I district would severely limit their developable area..It~is also important to-note the `history of commercial properties at this location. The opposite corner from the subject parcels is zoned Conditional Use A-I and the current office use on that property was approved for expansion by the County Commissioners in July 2000. This CD(A-I}was established in 1991 and has been revised twice since. Prior to that there was a convenience store in that location. Based on this history, the problematic configuration of the parcels, the potential of fiittire expansion of the ¢~>~'~AErport`, andGth~e' onflict with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends denial of the request. Q1~143C8~9Ac ' ~ t1~Yt,~f~ 12 ~ ~~~~~ ~~ .~~ ~~a . '`l '{ µ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - - . REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION , ..Meeting Date: 10/02/00 ' - Regular Item #: 7.2 Estimated Time:., Page Number: .~ Department: 'Planning Presenter:. Dexter Hayes ~ " r ~ Contact: Baird Stewart - SUBJECT: F . Z-711., 08/00 From R-15 Residential to O&1 Office and -Institutional BRIEF SUMMARY: ' The petitioner is requesting a rezoning.from R-15 Residential to 0&I Office Institutional.-This area of the.County is developing rapidly.. The construction of Ogden Park is in its final stages. The " . wi,deriing, extension a"nd.improvemenf of Gordon Road is also in its final stages. The zoning on the , northern side of Gordon Road is residential, the uses are primarily institutional. uses.. There is a waciety of uses that exist along Gordon Road including convenience service stations, office and . ~ institutional uses, and industrial uses, a personal care facility,and several. residential . developments. Staff feels that 0&I Office Institutional zoning on this site is consistent with. the current .land .use" in the;. area and would provideya good transition into the residential, uses to the -. west Staff recom-mends approval. °, ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION-.AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: - Mr. Rizzo presented his request.to rezone his property form R-15 Residential to 0&I Office and Institutional. ~He als.o presented a Special Use request for a convenience food store on the same `property :Several-neighbors spoke in opposition to the Special Use Permit. However, few opposed rezoning the property to 0&I Office and Institutional. The Planning Board voted unanimously to _~ recommend approval of the rezoning request: . ~ - FUNDING. SOURCE: - N/A . `: 'ATTACHMENTS: ~, ,. 3~ REVIEWED BY: ~' ' LEGAL: N/A FINAN,CE:'N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/,A ~ . COUNTY'MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:' ' -COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: - °: . . ~. ~ BOUNTY OOMMISSION~ APPROVED p - ... REJECTED Cc,~--'' ;' ,. ~ .. REMOVED p ~". POSTPONED CJ 15 FIEAR~? . Ei.' CASE: Z-711, 08/00; REQUEST: ACREAGE: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Joe Rizzo From R=15 Residential to O&I Office and Institutional 1.16 Acres Intersection of Gordon Road and Ogden Park Drive.. ;~ LAND CLASS: Developed -The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued intensive development-and redevelopment of existing urban areas. These areas are already developed at a density approaching 1,500 dwellingunits per square mile. Urban services are already in place or scheduled `within the immediate future. Most of the land' within the City of Wilmington is designated as developed, except for some Urban Transition and Conservation areas. Density may exceed 2.5' unifs per acre within the developed class,.depending upon local zoning regulations. PLANNING BOARD .RECOMMENDATION 8/3/00: The applicant Mr. Rizzo presented his requestto rezone his property from, R-15 Residential to.0&I Office and Institutional. Mr. Rizzo also presented a Special Use Permit request for a Convenience Food Store on the same property. Several neighbors spoke in opposition to the Special Use Permit; however, few opposed rezoning the property to O&I Office and Institutional. The Planning Board agreed that the property was better suited for non-residential type rises and that O&I provided a good transition. They voted'unanimolisly to recommend approval of the rezoning petiton. ' STAFF SUMMARY: The subject property is located at the intersection of Gordon Road and Ogden Park Drive. The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from R-15 Residential to O&I Office and Institutional. This area of the County is developing rapidly. The construction of Ogden park is in its final atages. The widening, extension and improvement of Gordon Road is also in its final stakes. NPw development in the area is beginning to establish itself and present a finished appearance. Although the zoning on the northern side of Gordon Road is residential, the uses are. , primarily institutional.type:uses with the Public Park and Eaton-elementary school;: Across Gordon Road from the subject site is I-1 Industrial Zoning which has a variety of uses including convenience service stations, office and institutional uses and industrial uses. Further west on Gordon Road there is a personal care facility under construction.and several residential developments. Staff feels that Office and Institutional zoning on this site is consistent with the current ]and use in the area and would provide a good transition into the residential uses to the west. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the request for Office and Institutional Zoning. ~~fiiC~f~~~a"~ ~~ ~ ~I'~3~~~ 161 ~ ,~~,".~;.e. .. ~ ° ~~ ~. ~, -.. {This page intentionally left blank} ~, •SEP-26-00. 11:05 F~ROM:DAVID BAREFOOT` ""ID:910?627877 PAGE ~.:1/1 • ~ . DAVID C. BAREFC~~?T ,. `~~~ l 1, ATTO~NE'Y AND COUNSIIAR AT Y.AW ' ~S'I'F31PL8 BU'~ING ' - 255 NoarnFrcoxrSrnesr . Pl1ST Q~?IC6 BOX 1766 , iVtWlNG70N. 1~4R'rN C~¢OLQlA2liA0'l ' (41d) 76Z-0?S3 FAX (9toj 753-7$T/ .. September 26,2000 ' VIA TELEFAXt341-A•55S)artd l!_S_. Maif: ` - Mr. Dexter L Hayes • • e New Hanover• County Planning Director, ' . - ',, .414 Chestnut Street, Suite 404 . Wilmingtpn, N. C.• 28401-4.027 - ~ . ,, Re: ~ David C. Barefopt Application for TF Holdings Limited Partnership • Rezoning R-20 Residential to I-2 Industrial - 8.55 ~ acres, ` - 3001 Blue-Clay Road, West side, North of N. Kerr Intersection . , Z-712. 8/OQ ; . ~ 'Dear Dexter: • Pursuant to our conversatron' yesterday, this is to confirm that we wish to continue ' our zoning request to the November'T3, 2000, meeting of Commissioners. 13y copy of this letter I am requesting that Lucy Harrel! reschedule the above matter as indicated. ' ~ The reasons we discussed erg; t. We wish to change our `request from I-2 to !-"i in response to caneerns . , expressed at the planning commission hearing. We trust th2rt would be more acceptable tc~ ` the neighborhood. iWe have elso considered the possibility of changing to a conditional use district but since we don't have anything definite on the horizin, that. would be our last • choice).. • 2 Drainage. The neighbors also expressed concerns about the drainage. We heve . been investigating that issue and hope to develop a drainage plan that will have a favarab(e . impact an the neighborhaod but will need more time to study this issue, , ` • 3.~ Title Problem. We have, discovered a slight title problem with part of the property ' within -the Trask families. We expect ~ to have it corrected within the week. inc!udin~ the joinder of the another Trask member: • If you have any questions or need any additional information please do not hesitate tv givB • m"e a call. I would appreciate a copy of your report and a .copy of the- agenda when available. ; w . _ ._ ' Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance• in, this matter. .> Sincerely. • , ` .. 4 , • • - David C. aref of , •. - .~ Cc: TF Holdings. Limited Partnership ~' Ms. Lucy Harrell , l) ~:,;. .~ . - . -_ ,. ~ . ~~ , ,. .. ~ ~. - NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ~~ ;" • Meeting Date; 10/02/00 Regular Item #: 7:3 Estimated Time: Page Number:, :. ~~ Department: Planning Presenter: Dexter Hayes • ..~ ' ,Contact: Baird Stewart - SUBJECT: ~ _ ' ~ . Z-712 08/00 R-20 Residential to I=2 Industrial " ~ ~ . + BR1EF SUMMARY: . ~ The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from R•20 Residential to l-2 Heavy Industrial; According to • fhe.Comprehensive Plan the subject propertyfalis on the border of two different (and - caassifications: There is a pocket of I.2 Heavy Industrial adjacent and south of the subject .property. The zoning along the west side of this section of .Blue Clay Road is primarily R-20 - Residential. The-property to the east and across Blue Clay. Road is zoned I-2 Heavy lndustriai and is part of the~l8 acre North Kerr Industrial Park originally approved by the TRC committe in 1996. . ~ There is currently an abundant supply of Heavy Industrial Property available across the street in '- he North Kerr Industrial Park and in other areas along Blue CIay,Road: The Staff recommends ..denial of the request. - : RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS• ~ ~- ' Mr. Barefoot an attorney fore the petitioner presented the rezoning request. There was a significant _ discussion about drainage and about i-2 Heavy Industrial Uses. Several people from tvywood and . ~ other surrounding subdivisions voiced their opposition to this request. The Planning Board voted unanimously to. recommend denial of the request.' FUNDING SOURCE: ., ,. _. '; n/a. ,~ ` - ATTACHMENTS: ..~ 18 s. REVIEWED BY: : . . ; - `. LEGAL: N/A. FINANCE: N/A BUDGET:. N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A . COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: - °.~ COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: "~ - ,. • . . _ :: . : ,. - '~ , ~OUNTV GO~fMI~tON 1 _ ~ ~ APPROVED p . REJECTED p - ' , . t~ • REMOVED p ~ - POSTPONED ~1 9 L't~A'/~,v, 8i i-iEARD ~ ;~ CASE: REQUEST: Z-712, 08/00; APPLICANT: David. Barefoot for TF Holdings Ltd. R-20 Residential to I-2 Industrial ACREAGE: 8.55 Acres LOCATION: 3001 Blue Clay Road on the west side, north of the N. Kerr Intersection. LAND CLASS: The subject property is on the border of the "Urian Transition" and the "Resource Protection" land classification as identified by the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. • . .Resource Protection -The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide, for the preservation and protectio1n of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. The Resource Protection class has been: . - developed in recognitiomof the fact that New Hanover County, one of the • '~ ' ~ most, urbanized •counties in the State, still contains numerous areas' of - environmental or cultural sensitivity which merit protection from urban' land uses...'. The~class also includes land in`the castle Hayne area where "the protection of Farm Land, a rural lifestyle, and the aquifersystem are ' highly important issues. Generally residential densities greater"'than 2:5 units/acre shall not be permitted ... . PLANNIN;G~BOARD RECOMIVIENDATION 8/3/00: _ ' ; ' - Mr. Barefoot an attorney for the petitioner presented the rezoring request. There was a ~ ~ ; significatif discussion about drainage and about I-2 Heavy Industrial Uses. Seve'ral,people from Ivywood-Runnymeade development and other surrounding subdivisions voiced their opposition to the industrial uses located in their backyard. The Planning Board unanimously yoted:to recommend denial of the request. STAFF SUMMARY: ." The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from R-20 Residential to I-2 Heavy Indu~frial. As noted above according to the Comprehensive Plan the subject property falls on the border of two;. different land classifications. Although there is a pocket of I-2 'Heavy Iadustrial adjacent and' - south of the subject property the zoning along the west side of this section of Blue•Clay Road is primarily R-20 Residential. The pocket of I-2 heavy industrial zoning to the south is a result of existing uses that were classified as Industrial at the time of the original zoning in 1974. '~ '. ~ - Wrightsboro Acres, the subdivision to the west of the subject, property was platted in the early 1960's. There is an existing road stub from Long Leaf Drive into the subject property. The .. property to the east and across Blue Clay Road is zoned I-2.Heavy Industrial. lVlucti~ofthis property across Blue Clay is part of the 18 acre North Kerr Industrial Park originally approved by _the TRC committee in 1996 and then revised and re-approved in 1998. The North Kerr Industrial Park has had mixed success and continues to be developed slowly. Although the subject property is adjacent to some Industrial zoning, the property is well screened from the adjacent use. Currently there is an abundant supply of Heavy Industrial r - „~ f ~ ,~Prop~erty~ja~,yalable~across the street in the North Kerr Industrial Park and in other areas along Blue Clay Road! Much~~fathe°property in this area is zoned R-20 and classified as Resource Protection because o„~f thegpresence.~of a high water table. The property's location adjacent to the Wrightsboro Acres Subdivis;~on~a~lsgmakes rezoning to Heavy Industrial less desirable. For all of these reasons - ~ &'l~l'~43~i~'~f3 . ~~ ~.:~ _ .. ,., ~, ,`) Case: Z-712,08/00 Petition Sn~n~nary Data Owner~Petitioner: TF Holdings Limited Partnership Existing Land Use: Agriculture Zoning History: July 1,1974 (l0A) Water Type: Well Sewer Type: Septic Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optimist Access & Traffic Volume: 4;900 Fire District: Wrightsboro S . Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Ness Creek C(SW) Aquifer Rechar eg Area: Secondary Conservation/Historic/Archaeologic Resources: None Soils: Wrightsboro, Lynchburg, Pantego Septic Suitability: Class II (Moderate), Class II (Moderate), Class III {Severe) 2 r~ ,Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary Many days, on the news and in the newspaper., valid concerns are ' i `~ expre`sse~d about poor planning, and: mismanaged growth in New 'Hanover County. I come .before .you tonight. asking that a neti~ precedence be set.; that careful consideration be, given to this re-zoning request', and .that in at least this . `instance, rapid county growth anal haphazard.. development will .. •be held iri check. :-The ~Irightsboro Community, while expanding, has primarily-been a quiet suburb, mixing historic family roots well with `first-time home buyers dreaming of raising•their families - • ~ safely; ;.and partially buffered from the negatives of our . :, sprawl'ing.city. • ~ ,. To rezone this tract of farmland, (currently R-20), to allow the ,encroachment of heavy industry .threatens • the very ,.heart of our community. As I understand it,`a, . . rezoning to heavy industry would allow a vast array of ~. •' business possibilities, all unacceptable as .next-door neighbors. Oizr concerns focus.on every aspect of our quality~of life. The recently. updated intersection of Kerr Ave. and Blue Clay . ,. .Road cannot tolerate an increase in .commercial traffic. The • subdivisions o.f Runneyineade, hvy Wood,. Oak Bend,~and . ~ - 23 t ~ .. sections of Holland Drive are .y alread overwhelmed with runoff from ,common Summershowers ~ j ~~ ~ ' _. making roads im assable p , and couldn't begin to .'absorb the wader from•an additional paved and cove eight acres. ~ red While county water has long been discussed, many. effected residents depend on ind'ividual'wells for d ' bathin rlnking and g;. no heavy industry can .. guarantee our water's sanitation as its wastes and bi-products flow into1our unusually high water table to the already polluted Cape Fear River. Nor do we wish to welcome heav Y equipment, noisy machinery, bright lightin - g, or airborne pollutants, all commonly associated with industry operations which have the liked ~ also y potential for around-the-clock business. This property is within a stone's .throw of current dwellin s on Holland Drive. ~ g. There are four churches an 0 and ballfield ptimist club . and one public school all within one mile. In the giant puzzle-that is New Hanover County, k, „ consideration of this rezoning is a piece that has no •logical, humane fit, and we 'ask that the line•be drawn~...that this type of undesirable development be sto peed here. Protect our property values and current, valued wa of Y life. Please, _ use foresight,, and common good sense judgement and deny big business unweTcome•, unnecessfary access~to our residential. neighborhood. - ~ ~. Thank-You. 24 ~1 ~) '1 July 31, 2000 We the neighbors of Blue Clay Road, Wilmington and Castle Bayne, North Carolina petition against-and protest Rezoning our neighborhood to Industrial. We wish to . raise' our children in a nora-industrial atmosphere.. _ .. ~- :Name .,~ ~ `Address Zip Phone # 1 • • ~ -~ s3 -~-~ ~. a 8 `~ . 7~ ~ - o~`~ 7' 2 _ 3: .. ~9o Grv~~t(vvds ~ ~ ~ i ~ 3~a = qo g~ ~ ~ ~~ 5 Li 6 ,, ~-. - !t ft ~, e 3 a C~ P~~e a~ y ~ ~ .~ ys~ z -- ~o ~~ ~"/ A/2( ;~ YC~~~~~~/' .. ~ ~l~f ~ f~~,f~ /J~ry ~~ ij ~ f ~ ~ n ht' V - 7 ~ I ~/~{ ~ d { A ~ q \ ~ t . Z y _ f 9 ~.. ~~ 1! ~ ~~ "5 7~/~/ ~ ~ . ~C , ~ ;~ - ~:i ~ ~ r~ i 0 - ~ ^ .11 (w 4 .,~. j/~ ~,~, / ~w- / f~ci'~.'fi~- cJV'-..;~i..:. ~`~~.«r+< i "r'-r=a~~'C*~ w ~ r-' ~ G 4 ~ ~!-`"3 f ~ "~,~~~(`.1~ '~` ,~~"` v.~° s'J `SoY twt•$;~ ~. ,~°v.r". k`!~'- <..°" ~j~ .~ ~~`~ `~;~ ~ ~, ~ i4 rf, ~, c; ~ ~ , , 15~ S~ G . 16 f' -' ~ D .. ~ ,. ^ ~ ~ 9 V ~ r -. 17 . , ~~ ~ ~-a `7 ~ 1 ~ .~.:z. ,.1 g, . Y9 . zyyc~ ~-~ 3 ~ y ~ z 20 ~.~ i ~ ~~ ~ _ ,~ a a ~ ~a ^ a a - 2 2S; ~~ July 31, 2000 , . We the neighbors of Blue~Clay Road; Wilmington'and Castle Hayne, North Ca Apetition against.and rotest Rezoning our neighborhoodto fnd rolin raise our children in anon-industrial atmosphere. ~ ~ ustrial. We wish to Name Address ZiP Phone # 1. , . _ ~~o ~ 1 f a ~~~~~ (~~ 3 ~~~ d 6 ~~~~I~' 4 G~ ~ - ~ Ia ~;~ ~ - q ~ ~~~-- r ~~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~8 ~1~.~ ~ - x"06 c--- n i, ,, Tuly~31, 2000 ~ ~ ~ " ~~ We the eighbors of flue Clay Road,"Wilmington petition against and and Castle ~[a ~, lin i ar N protest Rezoning otir neighborhood to ~ndu raise-our children in anon-industrial atmosphere. o ~ , yye ~~ tr al wish to Name , . ;: Address Zi ~ ~ ~' P : Phone #.. . ,.. ~` 1.` ~ ~. . 2. L ~~ J ,.. ~ O .. ~ . ~~ z 3-D7? . ~; s . ~s ~ 2 ~~ 1 _c~ ~~~~~ `- { `~`` `per . ,1--~~-t;" ~ _ ~~ ~ ~~~~a'i~ ~.. ~ _ G .. 13'; 4 5 l z-~' ~!f << f Z duly 31, 2000 We the neighbors of Blue Clay Road, Wilmington anal Castle Ha ne Nort petition against and protest Rezoning our neighborhood to Indu trial. We sh tuna raise our. children in anon-industrial atmosphere. ° Name Address - - - Zip .. Phone_ # 7 1 ~ •. 11~ X2 13 _____~ 14 ~ ~,.. _ , . 7 July 31, 2000 We the neighbors of Blue Clay Road, Wilmington and Castl petition against and orntest Rezoning our neighborhood to IndustrialNorth Carolzn~ raise our children in anon-industrial atmosphere. We wish to •_ Name Address ZiP Phone # 1. 2 ' ~o~g ~Bwgna~e~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 4 5 • 6 7• • 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 _, . 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?f,~66~ I ~~ July 31, 2000 .. We the neighbors of Blue Clay Road, Wilmington and Castl petition.againstsnd protest Rezonin our neiQ a I-Iayne, North Carolina raise our children in a non-industriagatmosphereorhood to Industrial. We wish to ..; Name ; ; `- Address, _ '. Zip (f ,./~ ~ Phone # 1. ~allLonh~ ~ 32~ Slt CAL - tl 2 ~ 2~`~29 Paz-3/ ~`, ~ ~~ ran , 1 -~r1 - - --~ 3 4 5 ~A ~1~~ C . 6 ~~ s 9 10 11 12' • G1 22 VCv v' ~_.u/t ~~ 6 ~s- ISz..3 r~~~;~-~ AUG-03-2000 09 39 NATIONAL LINEN SERVICE P . 02 Daly ~~ r, zooo VYc tl~c >~aci~hhors of I3r~~o~~lny ~oa~d, Wilmin~~on and Caette netit6on.~:~inxt ~nc~,~3-~,~ Rezo~in~ ot~r ttci hb~riao Bayne, Iolorth C;u~aliu~ ~-/ ruigc~ u~~r chfidren iA~ sr nan-indastrini aitmasp~iae~e, od to Yndies~rial. We wii~h to i`~A 8'8'3 C A(id I'CS~ . . ~i~ l~hrn3e ~ ~..~ 33v~ ~GEx 7)2s~-,tee -~~,D - ~ fit. ~8'~fA2-g G~5 39l - y7 ~i - 4 _ - -• - ---.-~~--~-___ _ - ~ 1 .. -~( w , - --------- 7 _ 9 ~~-~-.~..~. . l0._.~_ . _ - . - r y 1 --~----,-_ ~_ 13 ~ , ..r---~.~..~..,._._._,~ ._.... 1~-~-~----.----._ ~~ _ _,_.__~ 17 _ 1 ~ ~ .,._._ _ ..,.,,.,...,~.,., 19 _..,., _ ~~_ _.,....._._,.._._ 20~-.--~~_, ~ ------- 21 - -..~_._,_,-_.._._ Z~-- Z-__..._, ~ _ ... 32 _ TOTAL P.02 • ~~ T ~ ~__~ „Ca~iiuurS or ~siue (,iay Road, Wilmington and Castle Hayne, North Carolina petition against and t~rotest Rezoning our neighborhood to Industrial. '~~ . raise our children iin a non-industrial.afmosPhere. We wish to Name ~ ~ ~ ~ Address Zip Phone r t • July 31, 2000 We the neighbors of Blue Clay Road, `Wilmington and Castle Ha ne petition ~ainst and protest Rezoning~o.ur neighborhood-to IndustrialN`We Sholin~ raise our children in anon-industrial atmosphere. to Name Address Zzp Phone ## ??~ J ~ c (~ 4~ .. . 5 21 22 ~' --~3 ~: dll r NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION . Meeting Date: 10/02/00 Regular Item#: 7.4 Estimated Time: Page Number: Department: Planning .Presenter: Dexter Hayes Contact: Baird Stewart ° .SUBJECT: - Z-715, 08/00 from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential BRIEF SUMMARY: The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential. The site is adjacent to and south of the approved R-10 performance residential Kirkwood at Arrondale subdivision. The property directly to the west is zoned R-15 residential and is part of the Tidalholm Village at Tidewater Plantation. Property to the east is zoned R-15 and is a private development known as Pilots Ridge. The lots within Pilots Ridge have direct access to the runway of a private airstrip. County policies state that densities in limited transition areas should be no more than 2.5 units per acre. Although the density could be 3.3 units per acre and the lots could be smaller under the R•10 performance residential criteria, staff feels that rezoning this site to R-10 would be consistent with other developments in the area. Access questions will need to be addressed during the Subdivision Review Process. Given the availability of public utilities and the adjacent R-10 district already established, staff recommends approval. - -RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: An attorney for the petitioner presented the request. Several people from Pilots Ridge presented concern about providing additional open space at the end of their landing strip. However, most of the Pilots Ridge residents were not opposed to the rezoning. One resident from the Tidalholm subdivision spoke in opposition to the request. The Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend . approval of.the request.' FUNDING SOURCE: n / a ~ :. ., ATTACHMENTS: 5 .REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: N/A FINANCE: N/A BUDGET: N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: OOUNTY COMMIS'SION>sR$~ APPROVED . €~r__~ REJECTED p ' REMOVED p POSTPONED ^ ~' ~~ HEARiJ ,3 7 CASE: Z-715, 09/00; APPLICANT: Fogelman, Saffo, Turner Inc. REQUEST: R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential ACREAGE: 29.96 Acres LOCATION: Adjacent.to Arrondale Subdivision and South of Monterey H s LAND CLASS: Limited Transition -The purpose'of the Limited Transition class is to provide for the development in areas that will have some services, but at lower densities than those associated with Urban Transition. Residential density should be no more than 2.5 units/acre, with lower density being more desirable. The use of clustering and planned unit Developments (PUD) is encouraged. These areas were previously designated as Transition and were intended to provide for more intensive future urban development. However, the provision of public services has been scaled back and less intensive urban development is planned. PLA.IVNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION 9/7/00: The attorney for the petitioner presented the request. Several people from Pilot's Ridge presented concerns about providing additional open space at the end of their landing Others had, questions about the design and use of the private street which will be ° strip. reviewed as-part of the subdivision process. Most of the Pilot's Ridge residents were not opposed to the rezoning. One resident from Tidalholm subdivision spoke about the valise of the homes and~uses and was in opposition to the request. The Planning Board voted 6- 1 to recommend approval of the petition. STAFF SUMMARY: The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential. The site is adjacent to and south of the approved R-10 performance residential Kirkwood at Arrondale Subdivision. In April 2000 The County Commissioners approved the R-10 rezoni.~g request for The Kirkwood at Arrondale subdivision to the north. Under the performance residential criteria for R-10, rezoning this property will increase the potential number of units by approximately 24 units. The property directly adjacent and to the west of the petitioners' site is zoned R-15 residential and.is part of the Tidalholm. Village at~Tidewater Plantation. Several of these adjacent lots were platted in 1995. The property to the east of the subject site is zoned R-15 and is the private development known as Pilot's Ridge. The lots within Pilot's Ridge have direct access to the runway of a private airstrip. under the consistent the SUBD 1 0 district 38 ~ ~~ > state that densities in limited transition areas should be no more than 2.5 i the density could be 3.3 units per acre and the lots could be smaller ance residential criteria, staff feels that rezoning this site to R10 would be velopments in the area. Access questions will need to be addressed during ~iew Process. Given the availability of public utilities and the adjacent R- fished, staff recommends approval. ~~ C) `1 i Case: Z-715, 09/00 . '~ Petition Summary Data I Owner/Petitioner: Fogelman, Saffo, Turner, Inc. Existing Land Use• Vacant Woodland r Zoning History April 7, 1971 (Area 4) Wat=ype• Community 'Sewer Type• County Recreation Area: Monterey Heights Access & Traffic Volume: 25,000 Fire District: Myrtle Grove ,• Watershed & Water ualit Classification: Lords Creek C (SW) Aquifer Recharge Area• Shallow Water Table sand a uifer q Conservatior~Iistoric/Archaeolo is Resources: 1 natural o p nd . Soils: Kureb (Class I) Septic Suitability Good, Few limitations ~~ ,Schools: Bellamy 39 D ll~ru' ,~ir5, ~'~~C; iii, lit1C7C.iSi~tl~ti iZL~I~~LL~~~'i~ti,i; L~i i iu~iiiLiii~ illtr'1 1 ~ -'~ ti~11I ~~e r; C1~t~St Vtt r.,l~r. tlt t f~~l3lttOlill ~~ i ~, I-ty''~Jv~ ii'C~zi1 K-,[ ~ - _ ` " 41..' S?l~:I~'~L ~..~C~u~t~j~' (,~- `tU ~'C- i l1 U~;:-i3liSZ L~~ ~l~ ~(:i~'LI'Sti 127~~a:,t Or L tti' ~,~•~tii1~; f=L~it~:,S. ! fly il~`i }'Ot! 't;?i' }'L~ltr CL~i1.S2C~~~'ai1C1i1. ~ . 1t~sp~ cT1i~~1}': 40 1' .C7.l~in, ~~C~I'G!'SS ~ ~~? ~a Z .t . ~ 9': tic r~ c /~y} ~G~ ~9n~~ ~-'~ 0 " GvYI r . t~ . ~ " '~~ G~2z ~,~~.~5 ~~ . z a~r~Z .5 ~ ~ CJr~. - - ~- 'DV' ~i~. /~ 690 ,L~Pscor~~ ,L7R. ~~~y/~ _ _ ~z~~~ ~~~ ~~y ~~ 1 {~, '~~~~~~'`~~fn ~~c'~y G~~s~ ~,vl,.~ l?~ .~ ~~ rya ~ c. ~ - - ~ ~~cC~~ ~~ C I cam G ~uuE ~ ~ /~. ~ ~~ 42 C~ ~:, ~; {This page intentionally left blank} r~ 44, CONSENT.AGENDA NEW .HANOVER COUNTY BOARD, OF COMMISSIONERS ~.. ;. .. Oc~ober,2, 2000 - a ~ ITEMS OF BUSINESS ~ ~ y PAGE NO. 1 Approval of Minutes - • 47 _ 2. `. Approval of Waiver or Reduction of Fees at Airlie Gardens ` 49~ ~. ~ .3. Acceptance of Healthy Carolinians Grant for Support of Healthy Carolinians ' S l Activities and associated BA #O1-0046- 4. ~: Approval of Interlocal Agreement for the Improvement of Transportation 59 `Facilities in New Hanover County , "~ , 5 :Approval of Support for Regional Transportation Needs. s 65 6,'. Approval of 1Vlemorandum of Understanding in Support of Cooperative, ,67 ~ Comprehensive and Continuing Transportation: Planning arid' Establishment ~` ~ - of a Rural Transportation Planning Organization for Brunswick, Colilmbus, • New Hanover, Pender Counties and the NCDOT 7,: Approval of Foster Grandparent Grant Application for three calendaryear 73 ...period 2001; 2002,. 2003. ;'E . ' ~ ~ 8. , Approval ofResolution Requesting NCDOT to Add Falcon Courtin Prince 75 . ~ ;George Estates and Roads in Lalcemoor and Berlcleigh Subdivisions of •_ North Chase Development to the State Highway System . ~ , _, . . Approval of Budget Amendments: ' . ,. .~ .. 9.~1 #2001-09 to Increase. Budget for Additional Revenue Received August 10, :2000 79 . .' Controlled Substance Tax Funds . , ; ~ 9.2 .., , ._ #2001-10 To hlcrease Budget for Additional Revenue Received August 10 and 18 ... . 80 _ • 2000 Federal Forfeited Property funds.. - ,- 9.3 #O1-0044 to Budget FEMA for a Project°Worksheet That Was Inappropriately 81 - ~ - ' ~ ~ Denied by FEMA Last Fiscal Yar , `9:4 #01=0045 to Budget Additional State Funds for the Women, Infants & Children ~ 82 (WIC) Program ' 10. ;Acceptance of $35,000 Gift from Praxair Library Links Program and approval '87 , ' ~ Fof related budget amendment #01-0052. ,. . ., . ~: • ~ . ... ~ ~ _ ~l '. ., a ~. ..._. .. ~ . 4- __ . ;_ r~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • ~~ REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION , . Meeting Date:10/02/00 `~ Consent (tern.#: i Estimated Time:{ Page Number: . Department: Governing Body Presenter: Lucie F_ Harrell. ' Contact: Lucie F. Harrell ~ . ` SUBJECT: ~ ~ . Consent Agenda - Approval of Minutes • BRfEI: SUMMARY: ~ - ' • Appr"ove-the following sets of minutes: . .. Regular Meeting; August 7, 2000 - Jail Work Session, August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting, September 5, 2000 Regular Meeting, September 18; 2000 ' • ,° RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: ~ - , - Approve minutes.. ... .. . FUNDING SOURCE:.- } _ ~ ATTACHMENTS: `. ,' ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW ` COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: . . .. . Approve minutes.. . ~...,, e s ,; , ' COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ., . . .. .. ~ .. . ~ ~ REJECfiED.. C] .` "' , 82EMOVED p , - ~ ~ .. ~ POSTPONED p ~ , - ~ . . ~,~AR~ ~ 47, ~ ~~~~ f~ ~ ooh • , , {This page intentionally left blank} „ -~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~y 48 ~~~~ . NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~. REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ., ` Meeting Dater 10/02/00 ' Consent Item #: 2 Estimated-Time: Page .Number; ~ ~ ~ - ~. Department: Cooperative Extension Service Presenter: Bruce Williams, Director . .~ Contact: Bruce Vllilliams, Director ~ ~ ~ - SUBJECT: Approval of Waiver or~Reduction.of fees -Airlie Gardens '' .: BRIEF SUMMARY; , ' The Airlie Gardens Foundation Board requests approval of a waiver or reduction of applicable fees ~. for.. a user who is affiliated with.. Airlie Gardens, New Hanover County Arboretum, NC Cooperative ' `Extension, any public or privafe educational institution or has been invited by Airlie Garden's ' ,administration to use the garden facility. The decision on fee waiver or reduction will ;be made at the discretion of the Garden Director. This recommendation was discussed and approved at the July 11., 2000 and September 12, 2000 Airfie Gardens Foundation Board. Meetings. The Board of ~ . Commissioners remains the final authority for waiving fees and may overrule the Garden Director. °~ RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: - _ ~ _ Recommend the Commissioners accept the recommendation of the Airlie Gardens .Foundation and = authorize the Garden Director to waive applicable fees as .presented. .. FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: , ~,~ REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: FINANCE: N/A BUDGET; N/A HUMAN RESOURCES: N/A : , - COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ' Recommend approval. ~ ~ ~ ` COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONSICOMMENTS: ~~ BOUNTY CGlNMISSi0NE1 - i . ~ APPRtaVED A ~ ~ . ~ REJECTEn CT r: REMOVED C? .~' :. ~ POSTPONED p 'Y. - FLEARl~ ~; , --`~.`~ .. , . ... J . 9b ~~ ~ ~~ 1 ~. ~"-"r~ ~ n~;"s'~t~ ~~~-~~aa... ~.. _ V;~ ~' ~ 4~11~c~at i, ~~~~~ °`d~~A~+~4~~~11 50 ~ ~,° g~= ~ : ~, .. r, - •- ' y . NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTfON ~ ~ ~ ,. " ~ Meeting Date: 10/02/00 - ~ _ ., - ' ' . ~ Corisentltem #: ~ 3 Estimated Time:"Page Number:. ,. ~• - - Department: Health Presenter: Elisabeth Con`standy, Health EdUCator .F ~ ~ , , `' JContact: "Elisabeth Constandy 343-6558 ' . " ~ SU BJ ECT: ~ - ~~ Acceptance of Grant - HEALTHY CAROLINIANS GRANT ($10,000)" ~ - .. ' ,. ~', for Support of Healthy Carolinians Activities ~ ~ , BRIEF SUMMARY: ~ . - . ~. } ,. We are.req.uesting approval to accept a $10,000 grant from the Office of Healthy Carolinians. The': `• Office ofiHealthy Carolinians, Division. of Public Health, North Carolina Department of Health.and `, Human ,Services, has funding appropriated through the North Carolina General Assembly to ' u ~ , support Healfhy Carolinians Activities. The purpose'of this grant is to reestablish and maintain the activities of the New Hanover County - - Healthy Carotinfans Task Force. We have joined with Brunswick County during this reorganization - process under anew name, CAPE FEAR HEALTHY CAROLINIANS TASK FORCE. We will be " m °certified as a two~courity Healthy Carolinians task force.` State funding wilt give us.resources to • ~ '.more quickly reorganize ou:r task force without a loss ofnecessary momentum; develop our re-certification lan, and Ian communit health romotion activities. See at • p. p Y p ' contra"ct addendum~s ecrf in terms of a reement. ~ - tacked grant , ~ '" p Y g g . ,; . This is anon'-recurring grant for $10,000 which requires a, 50°Jo match in in-kind contributions which will come from existing staff from various organizations spending time to accomplish the ; ^ .~ ` Healthy Carolinians objectives. ' ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION AND .REQUESTED ACTIONS ~ ' I . .. . ' Accept grant of $10,.000 and approve associated Budget Amendment No. 01-0046: ~ : - .. } . . - „' .. ; .. ~. FUNDING SOURCE: Office. of Healthy Carolinians, Division of Public Health, North.°Carolina Department of Health-and , ~. ~ Human Services.. - .. " ,_ ~` _ ATTACHMENTS: . Yes, 4 pages=Application/contract addendum : ~ . - " .. P ' ~ BA #O1.0046.wpd ~ F _ • w ' . REVIEWED' BY: .. ~, LEGAL:..: FINANCE: Approve BUDGET: Approve HUMAN RESOURCES: N,/A - ~. , '~ COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Recommend approval. / - COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: APPROVED L~----~-~"~ :: =, REJECTED E7 ..: . . :. REMOVED [~ o. . 51 POST N£D c .. ~ FiEARIa ~ / `x - . - Gi,' t _-,.~ j NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACT10N Meeting Date: 10/42/04 ~. . Budget Amendment `'~~ DEPARTMENT: Public Health/Healthy Carolinians BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 01-0046 ~ - . ~. ., ~ . ADJUSTMENT DEBIT ~ CREDIT Healthy Carolinians: State Grant , . :::~ ~ - ~ $10,000, ~ ' ; '} _ Contracted Services,.: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $1,Ob0 Postage Expense ,, • . ~ $500 Printing Charges $1,000 Departmental Supplies .. ; . - ~ $5,750 ..Training & Travel ~ , - ~ $1.,750 - ~~ .. ~ , . EXPLANATION: To budget State funds awarded to re-establish a.nd-rriar~tain the; activities of,the~ Cape Fear Healthy Carolinians Task Force. ~` ~ r l ~ . ADbll'IONAL INFORMATION•:_ ~ ~ ~ .~ ' APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners ' ., • ~ ~ _ • a ' art-.., ~ Ali' ~ ~`s~+ c:,rt::~M~V~~':~ ~~~~~~' x ",.i ~ S > ~k. ~l i 1'. .: ~w la _ ~ K, J1'. 1 _.. ` APPLICATION/CONTRACT ADDENDUM . " . .Year 2000 Certified Healthy Carolinians Task Forces County: -New Hanover ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° Contract: # ~ _ I'Vargie of~Health Carolinians Task For " Y Amounf ofifunding requested (not to exceed $10,000): $10,000 .. ~" Descrige how local Task. Force proposes #o use state funding to further focal Healthy Carolinians _ ` activities/initiatives and contribute to the Task Force's overall mission and goals. (See the 10 options listed in.the Guidance 4nformation) (Additional. pages can be attached if needed.) " ~ The New HanoverCounty Healthy Carolinians Task Force was granted cone-year extension in .May of this year to reorganize before applying for re-certification in 2001. We have joined with ` °'Brunswick County during this reorganization process under the new name, Cape Fear Healthy - Carolinians Task Force. We will be certified as atwo-county. Healthy Carolinians task force. State funding will give us resources to more quickly reorganize our task force without a loss of . necessary momentum, develop our re-certification plan, and plan community health promotion . :. activities. ° , ., ~'~ Expanding Ntembership and Building Collaborations: The.Cape Fear Healthy Carolinians Task f=orce is focusing.on expanding our membership and building collaborations during. our reorganization process. The frequent sharing of information in: '~ - ~ a timely fashion is critical to keep ourselves on track and maintain enthusiasm: We currently have monthly meetings for the..Task Force and for the Steering Committee, with additional subcommittee meetings for various issues and projects. Maintaining and. increasing our information pipeline through copies of meeting minutes, meeting agendas, and other informational materials necessary for us to make informed decisions are just some of the ways . funding will benefit communication between current and potential members. Postage for mailing . ~ materials to members without Email will enhance communication with community :members since.,a number of people do .not have Email access at home. In addition, we will host .. informational sessions in'a variety of. settings about Cape Fear Healthy Carolinians in order to build relationships with other collaborative initiatives in our.community and recruit new members. State funding vvill be used for mailing., meeting, and special events expenses to support these activities: ~ " Traini~ig artd Skill Development:- - ~ " . , . Many. Cape Fear Healthy Carolinians Task Force members are not able to attend HealthyF . Carolinians events, such as the Annual Healthy Carolinians meeting, because of the associated costs. State funding will allow the Task Force to fund or partially fund volunteer Task Force representatives, in addition to-the Chair, to participate in these events and report back to the Task Force. This participation will strengthen the dedication of members and build necessary future leaders for our Task Force. it will also give ourTask Force members exposure to.other - Healthy Carolinians counties. . ~llarke$ing: .. - . .State funding will provide support to educate the community about. health issues and build a " ~ community awareness of the. Cape Fear Healthy Carolinians Task Force. Planned strategies to. achieve this include creating a presence ~at health fairs, speaking at community, school, church and business gatherings, and sponsoring special health-related events. The-purchase of a~ - , .. 53 j ,. ., 1\ ` ij :. q~~ ` . Budget Request:. , Give a detailed description of how these funds will 6e used (personnel, contracts, operation, travel, training, etc.) Please have the Health Director, Healthy Carolinians coordinator and two representatives from your Task Force .Executive (Steering):Committee sign-and date this page. Original signatures are required. (Additional pages can M be attached if needed.) " As described above,.these funds will be used for expanding membership aril building _ collaborations, training and skills development of Task Force members, and marketing. ,' '.Purpose of Expenditure: " Requested State.Funds Matching Funds. Total (travel, personnel, operation, etc ). .a_co " Travel ~ -$1,500 $1,500 .. (For registration, lodging, mileage, van rental to State Healthy Carolinians mtgs.) ~?~ Meeting expenses $ 250 $2,400 $2,650 °' ~ (For refreshments and meeting space as needed) F, ~~ ~ Postage "$ 500 $ :500 (To send meeting notices, meeting materials, and special event notices) , "=;~p~ Pri~tinglCopying ~ ~ $1,000 $1,000-" ` (To print flyers, brochures, educational materials as needed) =~~,o ~, Program "Expenses $3,750- " ~ .$3;750 , . (For special events,/programs,/campaigns grid related expenses and incentives) :% ~ " ~tl~larketing Expenses $2,000 - ~ ,~ $2,000 " (For display board and educational materials) 37~?' "Technology $1;000. ; $1-,000. (For website construction) Personnel . , - ~ $6,000 ~ ti" "" $6,000: " "(For non-State salaried Steering Committee members: ~ ~ . 5 `members x $20 hr. x 2 hr. x 12 months = $2,400 and for " coordinator.services:.15 hrs. month x $20 hr. x 12 months =~$3,600)~• . ,_ ,_ - . ~ " " ~ ~- - 55 Describe the dollar match or in-kind Contribution. (Additional pages can be attached if needed.) Source ~ ~ Amounfi ~ '. (a) New Hanover Health Network in kind contribution $2,400 Meeting space at $20 hr x 10 hrs x 12 months (b) Wilmington Health Access for Teens in kind contr. , ~ . Of staff time at $20 hr x 17 hrs. x 12 months $4,080 (c) . Cape Fear Community College in kind staff time $ ~ 480 at $20 hr x 24hrs. x 12 months (d) Ron Wedekind, Faith Community Representative, $ 480 ' in kind personal time at $20 hr x 2 hrs x 12 months (e) New Hanover Health Network in kind contribution $ ~ 480 ' ~' ` . stafftime at $20 hr x 2 hrs x 12 months (f) Catholic Social Ministries in kind contribution $ 480 ' staff time at $20 hr x hrs x 12 months .. ' , Application/Contract Addendum approved by the following signatures; . Health Director Date ~ Telephone number .. ~ . Healthy Carolinians Coordinator (if applicable) Executive Committee Member -Community Representative Executive Committee Member -Agency Representative OHC/HE 8/2000 Date Date Telephone number Telephone number Date Telepho~e.numher 5g ` • N.C. Department of Health and Human Services ° i, ; ~V ° "' • r ~ LGCAL HEALTH ]DEPARTlO~IENT BUDGET ~ ! SFY 2000-2001 ~ ~ Revision Number. U 1 _ P:Q. Number • DPH -Chronic Disease Prevention &; Control 7/1/2000'• 6/30/2001 2001- 5 5 0 3 0 0 6 5 ° `Effective.-Date- Termination Date Contract Number Contractor: New Hanover County Health Activity: FfPatth Prmm~tinn Department _ - _ 'Project Director:•David E. Rice., Health Director Total budget: ~ 10,000 EXPENDTI'[TRES AMOUNT STATE ~ .. _ $ 10,000 LOCAL.. ~ $ _ 'TOTAL -equal to Total Receipts $ 10,000 'RECEIPTS ' AMOUNT • . 'LOCAL FUNDS: • • ppropriation- .. APPROP 101 $ ~ ' . TXIX , .. TXIX 102 $ _ . Other Receipts . ~ •" OTHR REC 103 $ :Subtotal Local Funds $ -0- ; . . b STATE/FEDERAL/SPECIAL FUNDS: • • 'Healthy Carolinians ~ T0,000^ Subtotal State/FederaUSpecial $ 10,.000 TOTAL RE IP = equal to Total Expenditures $ ~ 10, 000 • ~ ~ • -Local Authorized C~cial Signature Date Branch Head Division/Section Signature Date .. ~: f Initial 58 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - . . - REQUEST f OR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 , .. . .. , .Consent Item #: 4 Estimated Time: Page Number. ~ ' D g r: DHayes, BAustin -epartment: PI'annin Presente~ ..: Contact:{ DHayes ~ ~ - °. SUBJECT: Interlocal,•Agreement with the City of Wilmington for -the Improvement of - " " _ Transportation Facilities in New Hanover County - • `BRIEF SUMMARY: , ' . ~.4 As part of a Conditional Use Zoning approva{ in the Monkey Junction area in June, the _ ~, 'Commissioners assessed a transportation fee to be used by the City for transportation ~. improvements to the Monkey Junction Intersection. The fee is to be collected by the County and paid to the City when an interlocal agreement is entered into by the two jurisdictions: ~A `resolution ~ , - ~ establishing the interlocal agreement for transportation improvements is attached". T_ he City . Council approved-the resolution, with conditions, at their meeting in September . ` ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: - Recommend the Commissioners approve and sign the Interlocal Agreement ' . _°. ." , . FUNDING.-SOURCE: ° , -. .. ,, .. ., ATTACHMENTS: •. - " . one ~. _ -. ,.. ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW ~ ' .. • . :~ COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. - ./~ ;,,/ ° COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: - ~ ` ., -_ ' ... -: ~ , - ~DC-IVl°Y COMMI~I~ ''~ - r ~ .APPROVED . ° REMOVED. CI r , ~ '~ ., , . POSTPONED ~ . .~ : l '~ - . - FLEA _ . ~""RD J4 Da f_ _.~., . z~ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF WILMINGTON AND NE1V HANOVER COUNTY FOR THE IMPROVEbIENT OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN NEW.HANOVER COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Wilmington is the lead planning agency for the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and New Hanover County is a participant in the transportation planning process as provided for in a Memorandum of Understanding dated Decembei 7, 1991, and WHEREAS, the Wilmington Urban Area Transportation Plan 1999-2025 dated June 4; 1999 has been ' adopted by New Hanover County; the City•of Wilmington, the other urban.area jurisdictions; and~the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, the County of New Hanover and the City of Wilmington recognize that traffic and : ' ' transportation. concerns.are shared between jurisdictions irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries,..and WHEREAS, the underlying assumptions for the.growth in traffic in the Wilmington Urban Area on which the Wilmington Urban Area Transportation Plan 1999-2025 are ,based on the existing zoning in New ~ . - Hanover County and the other Wilmington Urban Area jurisdictions; and • WHEREAS, the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County recognize that many property owners will , seek more intense uses of their properly that will generate more traffic than anticipated in the development' ' of the Urban Area Transportation Plan, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County to insure that the ..: ~ ' transportation nerivork and in particular the roadway nerivork will meet the publics desire for a safe and efficient transportation nerivork, and WI-IEREAS, North Carolina Counties including New Hanover County are forbidden from spending funds on road building and improvement projects, and WHEREAS, upon agreement beriveen the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County the City of i Wilmington may perform roadway construction work and all functions necessary for the constniction and improvement of roads within the jurisdiction of New: Hanover County, .. . ~. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; that by this RESOLUTION the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners and the Wilmington City Council agree that the,City of Wilmington and~New Hanover County establish a cooperative relationship for the improvement of the street network in New Hanover County. Under the terms of this agreement New Hanover County can dedicate funds for road improvements necessary due to stew development under special use or conditional use permitting or the subdivision approval process for use by the City of Wilmington for the constn~ction of the necessary improvements: Furthermore, the City Cotmcil and the Board of Commissioners direct their respective staff to create an ongoing mechanism to implement the terms of this Resolution. MAYOR CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COMMISIONERS Adopted at a regular meetin~~on ~~ TTEST ~ ~~1~~~1 ~ . ~~19>wd~l~ 6 0 ~, ~~~~~~,~ City Clerk ~ L,;~~~{,t -, Adopted at a regular meeting on ATTEST Clerk to the Board of Commissioners f) LiEfd NO ~ d CITY of WILMINGTON North Carolina P.O. 80X 1810 28402 September 19, 2000 City Council City Hall. Wilmington, NC 28401. Dear Mayor and City Council: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ~. (910) 341-7810 FAX (910).341.4628 TDD (9i0) 341-7873 The City of .Wilmington and New Hanover County have been cooperating to develop and implement the Greater Wilmington Urban Area Transportation Plan.- While City and County governments have worked together to address transportation issues, efforts have been limited by, State statutes that prohibit New Hanover County from engaging in the construction or improvement of road facilities. In an effort to address these concerns, Council Member Laura Padgett, Chairman of the Transportation Advisory Committee, and staffhave worked with New Hanover County to develop a process that will allow New Hanover County to devote funds received in . conjun'ction•with the approval of new developments to implement needecl~ offsite road improvements. The attached resolution will authorize the City to enter into an agreement with New Hanover County under which the City will design, acquire and construct roads outside the corporate .limits using funds collected by the County through the development review process.. The need for-thia agreement became apparent during the New Hanover County Commissioners' consideration of the Special Use Permitjfor the new Lowes at Monkey Junction. Due to the impacts of thelproject, the Commissioners required the developer to par-`tic?pate in funding improvements to the Monkey Junction intersection as part of the Special Use Permit. This requirement was also enforced as part of the Special Use Permit • for the Super Wal-Mart and another development in the same area. If this agreement is approved, the County will be able to collect in excess of $500,000 for improvements to Monkey . Junction as a result of these developments. ~• 61 1~:- ~ It is respectfully requested that City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing an agreement for City construction of road improvements outside the corporate limits.. Respectfully submitted, 5~~ C~~ Mary Gornto ' City Manager MG/jmh _ Enclosure council.ltr f -~ .. ~: , .., a . 62 ~ ~ -.~ . ~ City Council ®-I7 ~ ~1®1'~ City of Wilmington . 11 .. ~ North Carolina . INTRODUCED BY: •Laura W. Padgett, Counclmember DATE: Se tember 19 20.00 . P. , - ,. - ~ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN . THE CITY OF WILMINGTON AND NEW HANOVER COUNTY'FOR THE ~' ' IMPROVEMENT. OF 'TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OUTSIDE. THE . CORPORATE LIMIT5 _ . . LEGISLATIVE INTENT/PURPOSE: t ,G ~ The City of Wilmington is.-the lead planning agency for • '--.the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan"Planning ' . ~,."Organization .and New Hanover County is a partner and participant in the transportation planning process.. The. ° ~ ;City.,of Wilmington .recognizes that traffis and ~ • transportation concerns are shared between jurisdictions regardless of. juris~dictiorial boundaries. ~ - .' =The unde'rly.ng assumptions for the growth in traffic: ~.~ n•the Wilmington Urban Area as documented in the ~ " -- Wilmington-Urban Area Transportation-Plan 19..99=2025 are . a ~-based-on the .existing zoning in New.Hanover"-County and the other Wilmington"_Urban Area jurisdictions. The City ° . Council recognizes. that many property owners. are seeking ~~ ~•. .more intense.uses of their property that will generate more. ° " ~ traffic. than anticipated. in the development of the, Urban. ,__ ~ Area Transportation,Plan. It is the desire-of .the-City of• ~ ' ...~~ `.:.Wilmington and New Hanover:County,.to insure that.the - r transportation network :and _in particular the roadway ="`' ~~ network.will meet the public's desire for a safe and .' ,:,.efficient transportation network. From time to time, New •' 'e - 'Hanover .County may require,° as part~of subdivision or~ " . special use permit, approvals, that a develope'r.provde funds to,be,.used-for the development of-roads and streets -~ ' ~ ~ in lieu 'of required :street construct°ion. G. S•. 153A~-331 T specifically ,provides that all.. funds received. by :a county . - in corijiznction,with subdivision approvals shall be • `..transferred to a municipality to be used solely for the ° development of broads, including design,.land acquisition "" e -arid construction., ` Any municipality receiving funds from.. ,a county for - street construction is authorized to expend such funds outside its corporate limits for the purposes specified in ,any agreement with the county. The.City is authori-.zed by ~ ~" 3. . 6 ~~-~. Section Z.4 (3) of the Wilmington.~City Charter to plan, design and .construct. new streets_or improve existing streets outside the corporate limits in cooperation with ~' the North Carolina Department of Transportation. .. The purpose.of~this resolution is to authorize :an agreement between the City of Wilmington and New .Hanover :" County.r.elating to;the City's use of~funds .collected by~New Hanover~County through the subdivision.and special use .permit process, for the construction and improvement of roads outside the City's corporate limits, ~. NOW, THEREFORE, BE.IT RESOLVED ;BY THE WILMINGTON CITY COUNCIL THAT: ~ ~ _ The City is,hereby.authorized to enter into.an ` agreement with New Hanover County for the improvement of streets and roads, outside the. corporate limits subjee~t to the folJ.owing terms and..conditions:~ a. New Hanover. County shall~p`ay funds received from developers and property owners for .street:'improvement`s ~ ~ through the subdivision and special. use permit approval process to~the City for the purpose of such improvements. ..,. b. ., The City shall not be obligated...to .spend any other funds in undertaking any ouch improvements. ~ - ~- ' ~` c: Prior_to requiring.a payment in lieu, the~Coiznty shall submit.' the proposal, to. the. City for comment on the `. feasibility, ,need and possible -timing of the improvernenLs.~~~ d. The City shall .not be.obli.gated.to'undertake the improvements. ,. Adopted at a Meeting on 2000.- ATTEST.: City Clerk ,,. .{ , °: 091100E/Transportation.Res/U: 64.E p% d . -~--~ - f~NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 , , ;Consent Item #: 5 Estimated Time: Page Number: Depart . . menu: County Manager Presenter: Contact: Allen O'Neal. ` SUBJECT: ~ , Approval of support for regional transportation needs.- . BRIEF SUMMARY: - ~ . ' . As discussed in ..the attached letter, the Cape Fear Regional Growth Team.is requesting the Board •' to expedite the construction schedule for the U.S. Highway 17 connector between f-40 and :.Highway l7 in Brunswick County, a.nd to improve NC 130 to Whiteville and on to 24/76 in Golur~bus County.: ~ . RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: :Recommend the Board consider supporting the project so long as the project remains in coor`dinafion with the Wilmington Transportation Improvement Program. "~~ FUNDING SOURCE:. .. , ATTACHMENTS: ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW " . `• COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: • t Consider supproting the project as noted above.. ~~,~,, '. - `- COMMfSSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ,_ .~: .. - _, f . - ' ~ . 4 -. -. - F. . -APPROVED C.~~'~ . ~ _ - Bj REJECTED . ~ .# ' .. , . REMOVED G F >~; * , . ~ ~ POSTPONED I~ ~ ~~~ .. _ MEAR~J ~ - . •• COUNTY ®F ~RUNSWICK ~' OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE BRUNSWICK COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ' POST OFFICE BOX 249 4S COURTHOUSE DRIVE N.E. (910)'253-2000 BOLIVIA, NORTH CAROLINA 28422 BOLIVIA, NORTH CAROLINA 28422 (8OO) 442-7033 (NC;~ TELECOPY September 6, 2000 , (910) 253-2004 Mr. William A. Caster ~ • 320. Chestnut Street -Room 305 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 ~ - ' ; RE: Regional Transportation Needs Dear Mr. Caster: During the fall of 1999, UNC-W sponsored a regional growth summit. At the conclusion of the regional growth summit, a group of local government elected officials in attendanceasked the Region•"O" ' ` Council of Governments to take the lead in arranging meetings among the elected officials in the'region, with a vision of creating a viable forum for addressing regional concerns. County Commissioners from Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, and Pender Counties, and the Wilmington City Council, comprising an entity, which has been named the "Cape Fear Regional Growth Team," have been meeting monthly~since January, and have identified several immediate issues. We.are • writing to you today on two of these issues which involve transportation. The first issue is the expedited completion of the US Hwy 17 connector,between I-40 north of . Wilmington and US Hwy 17 south in Brunswick County (NC DOT TIP project codes R-2633 and R-405). The benefits to our region of an "Outer Loop" are. numerous. We are especially sensitive to the need for this project due to safety and economic reasons. Currently the project is!on schedule. We realize we -are on . schedule:thanks to the cooperative effort of many people. We -want this project to move forward at a much faster pace. Our second issue is the improvement of NC Hwy 130 from the Brunswick County line'to Whiteville and on to US Hwy 74/76 in Columbus County. This connector is the primary evacuation route out of the coastal Brunswick County Beaches during storm events. The Cape Fear Regional Growth Team feels this road is not designed to safely accommodate the peak load, which must be hand?ed during the evacuation of our beaches. We are seeking improvements to this evacuation route. ' Our elected Governing Board requests to know your position specifically on these issues. We anticipate your support. in advocating these `regional issues at the State level. We also appreciate your interest and look forward to your prompt reply. /Si~nc~rely, ,,~~ William M. Sue, Chairman Brunswick County Commissioners cc: Chas May; Cape Fear COG ~~~~~ 66~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~NgWICK CpU~I ~, ~, y,,, ~ti~MCAH~~?~ ~'F~f~fi°~~e'~`~~r`~a~j. tl ~' ~ ~;,, ~ t.b ,1 ~~ • NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION ~ . - Meeting Date: 10/02/.00 -, • - •~ Consent Item #c . 6 Estimated Time: Page Number: • ~. ~ - .Department: County Manager Presenter:. :• Contact: Allen O'Neal . SUBJECT: Approval of .Memorandum of Understanding in Support of Cooperative, ~ • v Comprehensive and Continuing Transportation Planning and Establishment of a ' Rural Transportation Planning Organization for Brunswick, Columbus, New, , . Hanover Pender Counties and the NCDOT_ -. BRIEF SUMMARY: ~ ~ .. ~ ,.:: . • The.Council of Governments requests the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners approve a . •• Memorandum of Understanding in support of regional transportation planning and the `esfablishment of a regional Rural Transportation Planning Organization.' - ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: , • ~. FUNDING SOURCE: ,. - ~ .. D.. ` ATl'ACHMENTS: Recommend approval.... - - ,. • • 1TEM_ DOES. NOT REQUIRE REVIEW . ~ - '° COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: r Recommend approval. . •- COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: .. - ~ •• • •; Ii~MISSI~N ~OUIVIY 06 • - ' APPROVED : _ . , >ftEJECTED C) p: • REMOVED p ~ POSTPONED t~ `'~ "' . ~ ~ ~ 67 .~ _ ~ . • ~~ - ~~ ,. ;t • • . . .1480 Harbour Dr Wilmirigton, N0 28401 910-395-4553- FAX 910-395-2884 -.Serving Lccdl-; '.Governmarif iRihe '. -North Carolina Counties or Brurisw ck, ~oi~mr/u5, VewNano~.-~ Ana eendE " i September 7, 2000 ~ '. ~~t t-~ANpVER C`~' MANAGER'S t~FF3CE Mr. Allen "O fileal Manager, New Hanover County 320 Chestnut Street Wilmington, NC 28401. Dear Allen: The enclosed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) "is being sent to you for approval by your local government at the request of the Cape Fear . Regional Growth. Team. _At the meeting on August 29`h it was agreed that we would prepare .and circulate this agreement. " The enclosed MOU describes the legislative authority, the .purpose, and the membership of the Rural Transportation Planning Organization (RPO). The administrative set up is quite similar to that of fhe Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MPO). The RPO will have a Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) for the establishment of goals, priorities, and objectives, and for the endorsement, review, and approval of changes to transportation plans. The Rural Transportation Technical Committee (RTTC) will make recommendations to the RTAC on necessary actions. The details authorizing this are enclosed in the MOU..I expect we will want to have bylaws for the operation of the RTAC and the RTTC approved later by the RTAC. We hereby request action on the MOU by the New Hanover Co~rity Commissioners. Once this agreement has.been approved by each of the appropriate local governments (including Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender Counties) we will circulate one copy for signature by all Chairmen and Clerks to the Board. If there are any questions concerning RPO's please give me a call. Best wishes. (Sorry for all those acronyms!) ;x ~f`. :~ Sincerely, /~~ ~.~~ Haskell S. Rhett, III }tM`a~~~~,~n33agement Services Director ~~.~;~tV~id~` ~ .3 r_ ~~. Enclo u~re~$`~~ ~cc: ~~{Ln~c%~F. Harrell Clerk to the Board ~~ An Equa! Opportunity/Afflrmat/ve Action/ADA/Employer MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDIl1TG FOR COOPERATIVE, COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUING " .. ' TRANSPORTATION PLANNING '. - , ~~ AND THE ESTABLISHMENT ~. " OF A RURAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION • FOR = • The County of Brunswick, the. County of Columbus, the County of New Hanover, the County of Pender, and.the • North.Carolina Department~of Transportation. . . y ~ J ... WITNESSETH a Whereas,, section 135 of Title 23, United States Code; declares that it is in the national interest to ' . encourage and promote the development of transportation systems embracing various modes of transportation in _ a manner that will serve all areas of the State efficiently and effectively; and - • Whereas, North Carolina General Statute 136-T8 was amended by the North Carolina General Assembly, e ' by ratification of Senate Bill 1195 on July 6, 2000, and this same bill was signed by the Governor on July 14, ' " ". :2000, and subsequently Chaptered, and which Chaptered statute provides for the establishment of Rural ~Transportatiori Planning Organizations (RPO's), similar in concept to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's), . for transportation plarinirig in North Carolina's urban areas; and ' ~lhereas, the establishment of a Rural Transportation Planning Organization. (RPO), similar in concept to th,e urban Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations (MPO'sj would provide rural areas the opportunity • . ~. to work in partnership with the North Carolina Department of Transportation toward development of sound,"short ' ' - , : and long-range transportation planning for rural areas; and, " , • •' `Whereas, the establishment of a Rural Transportation Planning Organization for the four county Region • - "O"area would assist the North Carolina Department of Transportation in complying with the provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA 21), enacted June 9, 1998, relative to the participation of local officials and the public in the transportation planning process; and; ~Whereas, it is the desire of these local governments and agencies to establish a continuing, • ' • comprehensive;. cooperative transportation planning process with the establishment of a Rural Transportation •" Planning Organisation for the four-county Region "O" Planning Area; the following memorandum. of understanding , - '~~ ; " is. made.: , . Sectiosi 1. It is hereby agreed,. that the County of Brunswick, the County of Columbus, the County of New • Hanover, the County of Pender, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation intend to establish and participate in a Rural Transportation Planning Organization created for the general purposes and responsibilities outlines in the following:. , 1: To develop long-range local and regional.multi-modal transportation plans in cooperation with the .' ,area MPO and .the North Carolina Department of Transportation. ~ ' ' 2. Provide a forum for public participation in the rural transportation planning process... '3. Develop and prioritize suggestions for transportation projects which the Rural Transportation T "° Planning Organization believes should be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. ~. 4. ~ To conduct transportation related studies and surveys for local governments and other interested . . entities /organizations. . ' 5. To undertake mutually agreed upon transportation related tasks to'enhance transportation ,. , 1" .. , • ~ ~ 69 .. ~•'~ • . , _ ,., ~. system development, coordination and efficiency. ' .. Section 2. It is. hereby further agreed-that transportation plans and programs and land use policies and programs for the Rural Transportation Planning Organ~ation will be coordinated by the Region "O" Council of Governments, an agency selected on behalf of.participating local, governments and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, to be the administrative entity and to serve as the lead local planning agency for coordinating transportation planning in the four county planning area. Section 3. Establishment of Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC). A .Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) is hereby established with the responsibility for serving as .a forum for cooperative transportation planning decision making for the Rural Transportation Planning Organization (RPO). The Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) shall have the responsibility for keeping the policy boards informed of . the status and requirements of the transportation planning process; to assist in the dissemination and, clarification of the decisions,.inclinations, and policies of•the policy boards; and to help ensure meaningful public participation in the rural transportation planning process. • 1. ,The. Rural Transportation Advisory. Committee will be responsible for carrying out the following: A. Establishment of goals, priorities, and objectives for' the transportationplanning process. ~ - ... B. Endorsement, review, and approval. of changes to adopted Transportation Plans for the Rural Transportation Planning Organization. C. _ Endorsement, review, and approval of a work program, for transportation planning which defines work tasks and responsibilities for the various agencies participating, in the Rural Transportation Planing Organization (RPO).... , . D. . ,, Endorsement, review, and approval of transportation improvement projects which support and enhance„infra-county transportation within the four county Rural Transportation . . Planning Organization (RPO). _' r ' i 2. The membership of the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee shall consist of the following: A. One County Commissioner representing the County of Brunswick. One municipal elected. official from each municipal local government outside.of the MPO in Brunswick County, „ , B. One County Commissioner representing the County of Columbus. One municipal elected official from each local government in Columbus County.... . C. , :One County Commissioner representing the County of New Hanover -One municipal, , elected official from each municipal local government outside of the MPO in New Hanover County. .. l D. One County Commissioner representing the County of Pender. One municipal elected official from each municipal local government in Pender County. E. One member of the Region "O" Council of Governments' Executive Board. F. All members of the North Carolina Board of Transportation representing the Department of Transportation Divisions 03 and 06. , . 3. .The County Commissioner representing each County on the RTAC shall be elected every two years by the Board of County Commissioners of each County in regular session. The municipal RTAC representative shall be selected by the municipal elected board of each municipality in regular session every two years. A simple majority.vote:wins the seat; ,The term of office for all seats on the RTAC is two years. Re-appointment is possible. 70~_~~ n ' -, 4. The-Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) will meet as often as it is deemed necessary,. appropriate and advisable. One the basis of majority vote of its membership,. the Rural _ Transportation Advisory Committee may appoint a member of the committee to act as chairperson . ° ' ` -with the responsibility for coordination of the committee's activities. 5. The Transportation Planner of the Region "O" Council of Governments' will serve as staff to the RTAC. Section 4. Establishment of Rural Transportation Technical Committee (RTTC). A Rural Transportation Technical ' Committee shall be established with the responsibility of general review, guidance, and coordination of the transportation planning process for the Rural Transportation Planning Organization (RPO) and the responsibility for making recommendations to the respective local, state, and federal governmental agencies and the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) regarding any necessary actions relating to the continuing transportation planning process. • _ Z. The RTTC shall be responsible for development, review, and recommendation for"approval of the ` ' -rural transportation planning work program for the RPO, the Transportation Improvement Program, and revisions to the Transportation Improvement Program. 2. Membership of the: Rural Transportation Technical Committee (RTTC) shall include technical _ representatives from all local and state governmental agencies directly related to-and concerned with the transportation planning process for the RPO planning area: Initially, the membership shall include,. but may not be limited to, the following: A. County Manager (or his/her designer) from .each of the four counties of the RPOplanning urea.. _ .. • B. The~ChiefAdministrative Official (or, his/her designee) from each municipality in the Region "O", RPO planning area.- ` ~. ~ ~ , °' ~ C. Executive. Director and Transportation Planner; Region "O" Council of Governments. ' D. Division Engineer serving the 3~ Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of ` - Transportation, or his/her designated representative. ' • ~ E. Division Engineer, 6~' Division of Highways, North Carolina Department',,of Transportation, •' •;' ' ~ -or his/her designated representative.. ;. ', " ... F: •' Manages, Statewide Planning Branch,. Planning and Environment, North Carolina Department of Transportation, or his/her designated representative. ~ . "- ' ~: '~ G. Area Traffic Engineer, Division of-Highways, Traffic Engineering Branch, North Carolina ' Department of Transportation. , 3. The Rural Transportation Technical Committee shall meet when it is' deemed necessary,. - appropriate and advisable. The Rural Transportation Technical Committee will be staffed by the Region "O" Transportation Planner who will act as a Chairperson with the responsibility for -- coordinating the committee's activities. Membership of the.Rural Transportation Technical Committee may be altered on the basis of a majority vote of its membership and approval of the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee of the RPO. ~ ' Section 5, It is further agreed that a1T participating agencies. will assist in the Rural Transportation planning ` process .by providing planning assistance (where possible), -data, and inventories in accordance with the approved. work. program. . ' , Section 6. Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate their participation in the continuing . transportation planning process by giving 90 days written notice to the other arties to. p the date of termination.? 1 • ?` •• .. ; Section 7. In witness whereof, the parties of the Memorandum of_Understanding have been authorized by appropriate and proper resolutions, and/or legislative authority to sign this.Memorandum of Understanding, this the day of , 2000. i . , 1 .. ' Brunswick County Clerk to the Board By: Chairman . - Columbus County .. Clerk to the Board ~ ~ - ~ . By. ., Chairman , ' ~ New Hanover County Clerk to the Board By: Chairman Pender County Cl'eTk to the Board By: Chairman NC Department of Transportation Witness ,. By: • .. ~ Secretary , ' Region O Council of Governments Clerk ... . By: Executive Director a ~.. , • ~ ~ - - ` ~ .. ~ i COtJNQl. QF G(NERNMF~NTS _ 72.• E NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • °- A REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION T , _ , Meeting Date:. 10/02/00 Consent Item #: 7 Estimated Time: Fage Number: - ` ` `Department: Aging Presenter:. ~ ` ` Contact: Howard Brown- .:... SUBJECT:. . ,. • Foster Grandparent Grant Applica#ion for 3 Calendar Years :2001-2003 - • BRIEF.SUMMARY: •~ ~ The Department of Aging wishes to apply for the Foster Grandparent~Grant for another 3-year ' -period beginning -1-1.2001 and continuing through 12-31.2003. The total federal funds requested for the 3-year period is $378,159, with a County match of $99,336. The county's portion for this . year ($33,112) is alt in-kind and is included in the 2000-01 County budget. The following 2 ~.. years' county portion will also be in-kind and will be included in the respective years' budgets. The. funds vvill be used to pay a stipend to lower income older adults who work with children who are disadvantaged or "at-risk". ~ , RECOMMENDED MOTION• AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: 'Recommend approval to apply; authorization for the County Manager to sign the applications... ~. ~ ~--Also request approval of acceptance of the grant and of .budget amendment, if awarded. FUNDING SOURCE: ' - • Federaf$378,159 for 3-year period;.County $99,336!3-year period ' ATTACHMENTS: . ,. ~ - REVIEWED BY: LEGAL: Approve FINANCE: Approve, BUDGET; Approve •NU,MA'N RESOURCES: N/A n ,. ' ... . • COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval. ~ ;,~ . • •. . ~ ~ *, . - • COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ' . ~ ._ ` . ` ~ ~ ..APPROVED [ .. - ~ -. - _ REJEC?ED p ,.fl • !REMOVED .~ • :POSTPONED ~ 7 3 r ~EARfJ D ~n ~ l,r^ lam! -..`(~~ (.-.~.~il~~ii~t'~~t5~ti~~ ~~~~~~ 74 ~, ~-~~ ~~ .. ~~~ rte,; NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION, _ . Meeting Date:. 10/02/00 - ~ U`~ j ~•~ •~ ..~;•: • •J ~'..> ,,. `~. •~ *~f STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA e`- ~~~ u-''`~ ~•. DEPARTMENT DF TRANSPORTATION ~~•• JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID McCOY GOVERAtOR SECRETARY August 30, 2000. . Ms. Lucie F. Harrell, Clerk ~ ~ . New Hanover County Board of Commissioners , 320 Chestnut Street Wilmington, North Carolina 28401-4093 . . Dear Ms. Harrell: This office is considering the addition of roads in Lakemoor and Berkleigh Subdivision a portion of Northchase Development (Div. File No. 972-N) to the state system. After the Board's consideration, if they concur with our recommendation, please furnish this office with the current county resolution and official road name for our further handling. If I may be of further assistance, please advise. Very truly yours, David L. Thomas, P. E. ' `District Engineer DLT:psj cc: Mr. S. E. Cooke, P. E. r;. Y1,,,;..f`3~}~~i:J J~~I~~~ 4~f~4j..s ~G~`~ u;'.'~~~'9~4~`~ .II=33 ~xiVg~{~~~.'~~1 F ~s~~t~ ,~~... -~~ ~.r-=~•~ z-:~ ~ ~ 124' Division Drive Wilmington, N. C. 28401 {910) 251-2655 ,~, ~, {This page intentionally left blank} - a, r a. NEW -HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION. Meeting Date: 10/02/00. NE1N HANOVER~COUNTY -BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS• REQUEST: FOR. BOARD ACTION , . Meeting. Date; 10/02/00: Budget Amendment. Consent Item #: 9.2 Estimated Time: Page ,Number: •°, DEPARTMENT: Federal Forfeited Property • _ BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 2001-10 ADJUSTMENT • •.DEBIT CREDIT Federal Forfeited Property $32,761, ,. Capital Project Expense ,$32,761 EXPLANATION:. To increase budget for additional revenue received 8-10-00 ahd 8-18-00. Federal Forfeited Property funds are budgeted as received and -must be, used for law.. enforcement activities as the Sheriff deems necessary. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: .APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved•by,Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: REJECTED °.12EMOVED +POSTP®NE 8 O NEARt2 CE~:T~' d fl ~, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION a - Meeting Date: 10/02/00 ~ ` NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR. BOARD~ACTIO"N Meeting Date: 1'0/02/00 Budget Amendment"~ Consent Item #: 9.4 Estimated Time: Page Number: ,._ , DEPARTMENT: Public Health/Women-Infants & Children (WIC) BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 01-0045 ~ -" ~ `. ADJUSTMENT ,.DEBIT CREDIT Public Health: Women, Infants, & Children (WIC): WIC.Health Grant $9,778- Contracted Services $5,000 Departmental Supplies $2,822 Training & Travel $1,956 . ... EXPLANATION: To budget additional State funds received for the Women; Infants, & Children . (WIC) Program. No County funds are required. ' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS: ~U ~I~~lil~9~' ~' R~;1ECT~0 F~~ -~ ~' ~tEMOV~~~'~~~I~~~ ~ " L?OSTROI~,E[~ ~I~~ . 6~IEARp r., ~. ;~. ,t ~~, _3 .. , ., tY .. ~ , - e~.sr^n„ North Carolina , ~'~ ~~ ~ ~~. Department of Health and Human Services ~ ~. ` ~ ~ ~ .Division of Public Health Nutrition Services Branch , ° ~_ ~ '+ ~~ 1914 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1914 , ~ °' "~ 1330 Saint Mary's Street Courser 54-42-01 August 28, 2000 TO` Local Health Director ' ATTENTION: WIC Director . s . FROM: ~ -Alice Lenihan, Head ~ ' Nutrition Services Branch t SUBJECT: ~ ~ ~ WIC Caseload and Budget for SCY 2000-2001 • :~ Congratulations! Your local WlC Program has achieved the goal of increasing the WIC active parttctpattgn. As you recall, the ' SCY'00-'O1 Budget Guidance for your agency's. W1C Program was at a reduced level due to the caseload performance through . . February 2000:. The recent growth in your agency's WIC caseload was sufficient to reallocate your agency to the caseload and fui't .~, budget illustrated on the attached document... ` ~, The amount for caseload increase is what is to be budgeted. Please remember when revising your budget~.you must have the minimum • of 20°io of the total in the Nutrition Education Activity Budget. The amount is on the attached document:?' lease submit a budget revision to Cory. Menees by September 15, 2000. Contact your Regional Nutrttion Consultant if you have any ~uestions. x Participation for all local agencies will be reviewed on a quarterly basis. Agencies who are serving less than 97% of the SCY'00-'Ol `base caseload w-ifl receive a reduction in the base caseload and accompanying budget in the current fiscal year. It.is critical that w•e not oni~ maintain the current WIC participation but also provide services to additional individuals in the txligible population.. Your ' Re~~ionaf Nutrition Consultant can be of assistance if program outreach and: targeting activities: °~ .. , . oa_, .Attachment •. ~: `~ _ ,' cc. ~ Regional,Nutrition Consultants 4. Co.r}~ Menees +,. .. ° .Pat Spann. Thurman Turner .. .. '_ , ' S:nutrition/slice/S(}Oca cloadtln ~ ~ - ,. ~.. ~. . ,. - ~- - !~ .. ' - - ,. u _ i. ,~ ~~ • ~. f - r F , - - .. ' v r i~ r r , • . i ~~ AD H D 3632 24910 397855 422765 84553 Toe River 1652 10476 181817 192293 38459 Saluda 3188 2444 368639 371083 74217 ~. '' 84 . .rl ,,. ';, - Agency -.New Base Budget Increase Original Budget full Budget 20% Nutrition ..Education .. - . : Breast'Feedng - , ..Pitt 4070 15947 457801 473748. . 94750 Craven 3270 14899 365729 380628 76126 ~~ Pamlico ~'~ } 326 2677 . 35269 37946. 7589 Johnston 2510 16645 275519 292164 58433 Wilson 2414 9778 271212 280990 ~ 56198 New Hanover 2777 9778 313465 323243 12,346 64649 Carteret 1133 1979 . 129902 131881 26376 Pender 1346 13851 142823 156674 31335 Onslow f` 7384 52613 806885 869498' ~ 171900 Eastern Carolina HS { ,, 2459 28635 257,593 286228 57246 • v Sampson 1672 22582 172,.039 194621 .„ ,. 38924 .Brunswick ~ 1677 23280, 171,923 •195203 .39041 , Columbu's ~ ~ ~ 2341 - 17576 254916 272492 54498 Forsyth _- 6593 25841 741584 767425 153485 Alamance 2253 13386 248863 ~ 262249 _ ~- 52450 - ` Guilford - 7940 20021 904195 924216 ~ 184843 ` • Stokes- 915. . 7217 99289 106506 21301 Davidson ~ 3442 42952 357697 400649 80130 j: Yadkin 853 ~ 6984 ~~ 92305 99289 19858 Union . 2253• 13386 ~ 248863 ' 262249 52450 Richmond • .` •2096 6984 236990 243974 ~ ~ - ~ •48795 . Montgomery ~ 1003 1746 115003 116749 23350 ' d . Macon 764 1397 87533 88930 17786 Jackson 710 3143 79501 82644 16529 Swain 388 4190 40973 45163 9033. Clay ~ 197 1513 21418 22931 4586 Cherokee ~ 73$ 9195 76708 85903 17181 Cleveland 2083 3259 239202 242461 48492 Burke 1921 8031 215573 223604 44721 ,1 ~. V. Vw'rr. ......... v. ...rte.... ~..~ .. ~...~.. ~~... ' Ulvlsion of Oencril Servlees - . LUCEIL~ 1]~ALTI3 DEPI~.RTIYIENT BUDGET .. -- -- Revision Number 0 1 .. •` - . pivlslon o(~19a1ernal and Chlld {, enllh -. :'=01/ 2000 ~ 06-30 / 2001 Activity: W.I.C. - -active Date ~ Termination Dale ' dactor`: New Hanover t:~ounty Health Department Project Director: David E. Rice, Health Director ' "1't)'I'Ai, ilUllGA;'1 ; S S 7,822 S S __ 1,956 General 13reaist Feeding ' ~ Administration' ~ Client Services Nutrillon EducalSon I'romoiion P.O. Number P.O. Number P. O. Nurnber I':O. Number `~ ,` 65 O1 54050 0 5_ 6 O 1 54030 0 .0 1_5404 0 0 6 5 0_1_54090 0 6 ,5 _ _ Contract Number _ _ Contract Number Contract Number Contract Number- 1~TC EXl'END11'URES: S S 7,822 S 1,956 S ~;AL-EXPENDITURES: S ~ S S' S .TOTAL ESCPIrNllITURL•S - ' ~ 822 ' 7 - ~ 1,956 ecJual to 7olal TZeceipls 3 , ~ ^AL PUNLUS: ,'~ ~l~rialiun IUl ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ t~~{1X I U2 S S ~ S S _ . ether Receipts . ... ! 03 S ~ S S S ' sttbt~t~i Locai rands ~ ~ s s -o- ~ -o- s ~TFJFEDERAVSPECIl1GFUNDS: ~ $22 7 1,956 t5 , !C FUNDS ~ , S S ~ S~-blotal Slnle/Federal/ ~ - " . 'Special runds S S 7,822 S 1,956 ~ ' "TOTAL RECEIPTS.- . ,.equal to Total Expenditures S ~ 7,822 ~ 1.,956 S - ~~ ~ • , .: fnuUiorized OfT'icial $ignnlure U Ic Brnnchllcsd DiviaionlSecloon Signature Uatc ' -- b,ilial '~ncc O{7iccr Signature Date Accountant Fuca! Management Signature • Initlat :~iccsDiGision{itcvicw 2/99j . Date 85 --NEW HANOVER 000NTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~ REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 " . - ~p.~., o~"G.-~ - . Consent Item #: 10 ° Estimated .Time: Page Number: ~ ' ~ -~ .. ;,. ... Department: Library Presenter: David Paynfer - - .:Contact: David'Paynter: ~ ~ , ° SUBJECT: , Acceptance. of $35,00"0 Gift from Praxair Library Links Program " "BRIEF SUMMARY: °~ Rraxair Library Links Program has awarded the New Hanover County Library $35,000 to assist in the development of the computer, lab at the, Northeast"Regional Library. -This program is sponsored by Praxair, Inc., which has a site Here in New Hanover County on Highway 421 North.- " ~ It is a supplier of industrial gases, and wear-resistant and high temperature corrosion resistant ` ~ ° metallic and; ceramic coatings and powders.- RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS • ° Request acceptance of the $35,000 gift, and approval of related budget amendment. FUNDING SOURCE: ' ~: _. , _" .,. ATTACHMENTS: . ~. :. , . ' ~. REVIEWED BY: - - , " LEGAL: FINANCE: -BUDGET: HUMAN RESOURCES: ~ . ;, '. COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ° ~ Recommend acceptance of give and approval of related budget amendment: ', , _ ~ , .. ;. _. l COMMI'SSIONERS' ACTIONS/COMMENTS:. ~. ., - __ .._- ~ . . ' ~ ~4PPROVE®. ~~ ° , . `, ~EJEC7'ED q ._ z S;!EMOVED e; . E'OSTpO(yED C7 '~ _ '. . , ~dEARiJ _ ~ 1~ . ~ . l NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 10/02/00 - ~.. Budget Amendment ~ - DEPARTMENT: Library BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 01-0052 ADJUSTMENT ~ DEBIT ~ CREDIT Library: ~ _ Praxair Library Links Program $35,000 Computer Expenses $35,000 EXPLANATION: To budget $35,000 contribution from the Praxair Library Links Program to assist in the development of the Computer Lab at the Northeast Regional Library. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: APPROVAL STATUS: To be approved by Board Of Commissioners `~ , `J 6 t~ ~~~~ .. k;'! tt~ag~+V~ 8 8 ~ . ~., ~~ ~ ~1~~;~~~